Hansard -- Wednesday, March 31, 2004 p.m. -- Vol. 23, No. 3 (HTML)


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		9951

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		9951
	Wildfire Act (Bill 25)
	Hon. M. de Jong

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		9951
	Cascade Heights Elementary School
	J. Nuraney
	RAV transit line and transit projects in lower mainland
	G. Halsey-Brandt
	Breast cancer and mammography services
	R. Nijjar

Oral Questions		9953
	Cost of 2010 Olympic Winter Games and role of auditor general
	J. Kwan
	Hon. C. Clark
	J. MacPhail
	Consultation with first nations on aquaculture policy
	B. Belsey
	Hon. J. van Dongen

Second Reading of Bills		9955
	Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 12)
	Hon. T. Christensen

Committee of Supply		9956
	Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development (continued)
	J. Kwan
	Hon. C. Clark
	V. Anderson
	K. Manhas

Committee of the Whole House		9996
	Sustainable Resource Management Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 15)
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. G. Abbott

Report and Third Reading of Bills		10002
	Sustainable Resource Management Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 15)

Royal Assent to Bills		10002
	Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act (Bill 2)
	Business Practices and Consumer Protection Authority Act (Bill 4)
	Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 7)
	Ports Property Tax Act (Bill 8)
	Ministerial Accountability Bases Act, 2003-2004 (Bill 10)
	Financial Administration Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 11)
	Sustainable Resource Management Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 15)
	Railway Safety Act (Bill 20)
	Ministerial Accountability Bases, 2003-2004, Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 23)
	Supply Act (No. 1), 2004 (Bill 21)
	Supply Act, 2003-2004 (Supplementary Estimates No. 4) (Bill 22)

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		10003
	Estimates: Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (continued)
	V. Anderson
	Hon. R. Coleman
	P. Sahota
	P. Wong
	J. MacPhail
	Estimates: Ministry of Education
	Hon. T. Christensen
	R. Masi
	J. MacPhail
	J. Kwan

Mr. Speaker: Good afternoon, hon. members. The member for North Coast will lead us in prayer today.

B. Belsey: Dear Lord, as we return to this chamber each day, may we be reminded of the responsibilities to the people of this great province and conduct us through with reason and temperance. We ask for your guidance to carry out our duties in a progressive and compassionate fashion so that we may better serve our province and our constituents.

Please hear our prayers for our colleague from Kelowna-Mission, who will undergo her bone marrow transplant procedure this day. Guide her through a speedy recovery and return her to this chamber, that she may once again join us in our labours. Watch over us and guide us all with your most benevolent hand. Amen.

J. MacPhail: I know it's inappropriate to extend the prayer period and inappropriate to say, "Hear, hear," during the prayers, but I do want all members to know that my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I join with everybody in this Legislature in giving our heartfelt prayers to the member for Kelowna-Mission. We can hardly wait to hear of her speedy recovery and even more so her return.

J. Bray: I have a couple of introductions today. First of all, joining us in the gallery, we have several wonderful communications staff that work for government caucus. Christine Lewis is one of them. Joining us in the gallery today is her grandfather Lorne Lewis, as well as Lorne's friend Bob Hilltout. I would ask the House to please make them very welcome.

Also joining us today are friends of other staff members. Nick, one of our legislative assistants and a constituent of mine, is joining us today We have Lisa Voormeij and her friend Michael Artemenkov joining us today. It's her first time visiting the Legislature, having a look at question period and taking in B.C. politics firsthand. I'd ask the House to please make them very welcome as well.

Hon. M. de Jong: In the precincts today are students, teachers and parents from Rick Hansen Secondary School in Abbotsford — great students from a great school named after a great British Columbian. I hope everyone will make them feel great.

Hon. T. Christensen: On behalf of my colleague the MLA for Oak Bay–Gordon Head and of course myself, I would like to welcome to the House today 21 grade 5 students with their teacher Ms. Tanner from Glenlyon-Norfolk school. They're also accompanied by Courtney Pattinson. I hope all of you students have had a good visit at the Legislature today and are learning a little bit about B.C. politics. I would ask the members of the House to join me in welcoming these students to the House.

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Wildfire Act.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 25 be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. M. de Jong: I am honoured to introduce Bill 25, the Wildfire Act. As members may recall, this bill was introduced last year during the fall session, at the time Mr. Gary Filmon was conducting his review of the 2003 wildfire season. The Legislature did not debate or pass the bill.

This legislation, the reintroduction of the Wildfire Act, incorporates the existing legislative provisions relating to fire protection into a separate act to comprehensively address wildfire-related issues in B.C. The key objective of the act is to clarify the specific responsibilities and obligations of not just forest licensees but all users of the forest with respect to fire use, prevention, control activities and rehabilitation. That addresses a key recommendation of the auditor general's 2001 report on managing interface fire risks to establish firefighting priorities for the protection of life, property and natural resources. The bill also seeks to address Mr. Filmon's recommendations as they relate to clarifying firefighting responsibilities and managing interface fire threats.

I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill 25 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

J. Nuraney: I was invited last week to visit an elementary school in my riding called Cascade Elementary and had the opportunity to visit each classroom and witness its work in progress.

In my culture the place of a teacher is held in the highest esteem, as they are the providers of knowledge and enjoy great respect. I was particularly impressed to watch the teacher deal with a child who unfortunately

was mentally challenged and had no notion of communication. The patience, tolerance and total dedication of this teacher were remarkable and did the profession proud.

I also had the opportunity to meet with all the teachers and the principal during their lunch break. The discussions outlined some of the challenges faced by the teachers as our restructuring initiatives are being implemented. Whilst we have given the school boards total autonomy in making decisions relative to education in their districts, we must keep abreast of the changing environment and new developments in this field. Class sizes should receive close scrutiny, particularly when there are children with special needs in the group.

It is common for teachers to use their own funds to buy books and school supplies for the students. This indicates the commitment of teachers to do full justice to their profession and to protect the interests of the students. An interesting point was raised in our meeting, and that was that the teachers should receive a benefit through tax relief when such expenditures are incurred. I have discussed this possibility with our Minister of Finance. He assures me that he will consider this proposal as the budget is put together for the year 2005. I will be pursuing this matter with the minister at that time.

At the end of my visit to Cascade Elementary, I left with total conviction that dedication, commitment and professionalism are very much in the hearts and souls of our teachers. I pay them tribute and salute them for their unparalleled service to our young ones.

G. Halsey-Brandt: I have the privilege this afternoon to inform the House that the RAVCO board has just announced this morning its selection of the two successful teams it will be recommending to the board of the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority to submit their final and best offers to build the Richmond-Airport-Vancouver rapid transit line.

This is indeed a very exciting project. Vancouver-Richmond is one of the region's most congested corridors. It's home to a third of the region's jobs and 20 percent of the population. About 500,000 people — that's half a million people a day — travel as commuters between downtown Vancouver, central Richmond and the airport.

The RAV line itself is the equivalent of ten lanes of additional roadways. It will help to ease the growth of vehicle congestion while at the same time contributing to greenhouse gas savings and helping to improve air quality in the region.

This afternoon I want to thank the GVRD and TransLink boards not only for moving ahead on this project but on having a ten-year vision for transportation improvements in transit and roads throughout the region. Upcoming improvements cover all areas of the GVRD. Some examples include commencement of construction of a rapid transit line in the northeast sector as soon as possible; a new bridge across the Fraser River between Langley and Maple Ridge; a third SeaBus across Burrard Inlet; expansion of the system-wide fleet by one-third by the addition of 400 new buses and replacing the electric trolley fleet with new trolleys in Vancouver; major road projects such as the North Fraser perimeter road linking Pitt Meadows, Coquitlam, New Westminster and Burnaby; widening of the Fraser Highway in Surrey; and twinning of the Dollarton Bridge on the North Shore.

The three-year plan and ten-year outlook are designed to provide transit service as a real option to the automobile. It also addresses the mounting gridlock on our roads and bridges.

Today I especially want to congratulate and thank those members of our local city councils who have the courage and the foresight to tackle our ongoing transportation challenges.

R. Nijjar: In 2002 the Canadian Cancer Society estimated that 21,200 women would be diagnosed with breast cancer. They estimated that 5,300 would die from it. On average, 407 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer weekly, and 102 will die every week. One in nine is expected to develop breast cancer in her lifetime, the most frequently diagnosed cancer in Canadian women.

I am speaking today on behalf of all the men in this Legislature, all the men throughout British Columbia — all the husbands, sons, fathers, brothers, friends and colleagues — to plead with all the women on both sides of this House and with women across this province to please ensure they get regular mammogram tests and take all the preventative measures possible to decrease the risk of fatal breast cancer.

They say that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Although we can't prevent all cases of breast cancer, we can certainly prevent some cases and the negative effects. The benefits of mammography far outweigh the risks. There is plenty of evidence that early diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer can save lives. Quality of life is another benefit. Early diagnosis of breast cancer can reduce the need for radical treatments, including extensive surgery, chemotherapy and radiation therapy.

Unfortunately, mammography is still an underused detection tool in Canada. Many don't know or don't use the tool available. Women 40 years and older are entitled to one free mammogram test in British Columbia. It's so very important that they take this preventative measure, early diagnosis measure.

I know a lot of my colleagues here are so very busy serving their constituents, but fortunately, with set schedules we have the opportunity to have one week off. I encourage all those that have not had a test in the last 12 months to please go and schedule themselves.

To all the women that take care of their families, work their jobs, go to school and try to make a better life, please, please — on behalf of all the men of British Columbia — take the time to get this very important and simple test done for yourself.

For more information, contact your local physician or check out the websites for the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation and the B.C. Cancer Agency.

J. Kwan: It's been less than a year since B.C. celebrated winning the 2010 Olympics, and it seems that it has already been hit by cost overruns. Olympics president John Furlong said the capital budget will be hit by escalation and inflation.

To the Deputy Premier: can she tell us just how much escalation and inflation we're talking about here, and what does it mean for the government's bottom line?

Hon. C. Clark: We're going to stick to the budget that we've got for the Olympics. The member should keep this in mind, because I know she didn't support the Olympics coming to British Columbia, and I know that Carole James didn't support the Olympics coming to British Columbia. It shouldn't be news to her that the people on this side of the House — the government members — who have the best interests of British Columbians at heart, do support the Olympics coming to British Columbia.

The Olympics will bring the eyes of the world to British Columbia. It is the single best marketing opportunity we will ever have to promote our province to the world — to promote our wood products, to promote our human resources, to promote the incredible wealth and scenery of this province. We will be there in 2010, and the world will be here.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question.

J. Kwan: The Premier has sold the Olympics as a big benefit to the taxpayers despite many legitimate questions about the potential for rising costs, from his friends at the Fraser Institute to B.C.'s independent auditor general. The Premier has assured us that we won't have another Montreal on our hands. But do you know what? Just this morning it was reported that John Furlong, the Olympics president, said they are going to be faced with escalating costs and inflation. I know everyone in British Columbia will work like heck to ensure that we don't see costs run out of hand, but it is very concerning that before a single shovel has even been put in the ground, plans already appear to be out of whack.

To the Deputy Premier once again: so that British Columbians don't wake up in the morning with the Olympic sticker shock six years from now, can she just tell us in the ballpark how much more Olympic facilities will cost than has been projected?

Would the member put her question again, please — not the whole works, just the question.

J. Kwan: To the Deputy Premier, once again, so that British Columbians don't wake up with Olympic sticker shock six years from now: can she just tell us in the ballpark how much more Olympic facilities will cost than has been projected with escalation and inflation costs?

Hon. C. Clark: Our provincial contribution is set, and that provincial contribution is going to remain where it is. I know this member would love to be able to stand up and say that the Olympics aren't coming to British Columbia, but I've got news for her. In 2010 British Columbia will be opening its doors to the world, and we will have an incredible opportunity to showcase the great things about our province to people from around the globe.

She should remember that if there is a rising cost of labour in British Columbia, that is as a result of the fact that our economy is booming — 129,000 new jobs. There was one month in British Columbia where our economy created more jobs than the economy of the entire United States of America, and that is something to be proud of. That means more working people out there. It means more people bringing home a paycheque to support their families. It means more people making sure they can pay their mortgages. It means a healthier British Columbia, and it means a better future for people all across our province.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a further supplementary.

J. Kwan: The Deputy Premier's answer just shows how out of touch she is. She does not know what the province's responsibilities are under the Olympics Games. I will remind the Deputy Premier that the Premier had said that to win these games, he gave the Olympic organizing committee an ironclad guarantee to cover any financial shortfalls that may be incurred.

The province signed a full indemnification agreement, and that puts the taxpayers on the hook. It really doesn't matter if the Premier says there's no more money. When the bill comes in, the taxpayers are obligated to pay. It is one contract that this government cannot rip up. Rah-rah rhetoric is all well and good, but it doesn't ensure that the project doesn't go out of control.

Will the Deputy Premier just admit that the planned expenditures on the Olympics reflect government's guesswork at best? Will she take steps to ensure that B.C.'s independent auditor general is brought in to oversee all Olympic expenditures?

Hon. C. Clark: The auditor general has looked at it, and the auditor general has said that the estimates the government has are realistic. I would ask this member…. In fact, we should ask British Columbians: do they want the Olympics to come to British Columbia? I know that Carole James and this member across the way don't want the Olympics to come. I know they would like to keep our doors closed. I know they don't see any benefit in making sure that there are more British Columbians working in skilled trades, but in our government we do see that that's a benefit.

Let's ask British Columbians if they want the Olympics. And they do want the Olympics to come. Do they want the NDP overseeing this project? Do they want members like that one, who oversaw the fast ferries, who oversaw every major financial boondoggle of the last decade…? Do they want them overseeing it, or do they want a government that has truly balanced a budget for the first time in a decade in British Columbia making sure that this project comes in on time, on budget, and delivers benefits for people across our province?

J. MacPhail: Actually, this is a very serious matter, and clearly the Deputy Premier doesn't have a clue what she's talking about. The Premier gave full indemnification for the entire Olympics. That means the provincial taxpayer is on the hook for every single penny. The Olympics are not subject to freedom of information. They're not subject to the Auditor General Act. But the taxpayer is subject to covering off every single cost overrun.

Here's what the auditor general warned. The auditor general did not in any way say that there wasn't trouble in the Olympics. He warned the government last year that the contingency fund set aside for the Olympics might be inadequate. The Olympics minister dismissed the concerns and said the costs in the bid "reflect the exact expenditure."

Mr. Furlong I don't think is wrong, unless the Deputy Premier is accusing him of being wrong, and he's saying it isn't the case. I suppose with this government, exact expenditure is a flexible term.

J. MacPhail: …to ensure the costs don't spiral and who can guarantee full public accountability and transparency is the auditor general. Again, to the Deputy Premier: now that the costs are already on the rise — Mr. Furlong is warning her government of that; the auditor general is warning her of that — will she take immediate action to bring the auditor general in as the full-time Olympic spending watchdog?

Hon. C. Clark: Let's cut to the chase here and get to what this question is really about. The NDP is opposed to the Olympics coming to British Columbia. We know that. We know that the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant even voted against the Olympics coming to British Columbia when they held a referendum.

The fact is that our government has a very different vision for our province than Carole James and the NDP. While they don't want the Olympics, while they don't want aquaculture, while they don't want mining, while they don't want forestry, while they don't want oil and gas, we do. We want to make sure that those jobs are here in British Columbia for British Columbia workers. It is a contrast. It is a different vision for our province, and if the NDP would allow their leader to run for office and let her come to the Legislature, then we could have an opportunity to compare our visions and talk about what we want for British Columbia.

Let's have the next leader of the NDP come to this House. Let the Leader of the Opposition stand up and say she'd like to let Carole James come to this Legislature and she'd like her to be held accountable, and let's enter into a real debate about our vision for British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: I find it strange that the Deputy Premier is commenting about in this Legislature…. Her Premier has the poorest record ever of attending this Legislature — the poorest record of any Premier in this history of attending this Legislature.

All the bravado doesn't do one thing to protect the taxpayer — not one. The Olympics….

J. MacPhail: The Olympics have been pursued by this province since 1998. The Italian organizing committee for the Turin Olympics warned the Premier yesterday that costs could escalate by 20 percent, and they said that's conservative. On the facilities alone, that's an extra $120 million for the taxpayers. It's a lot of money when you consider that health care wait-lists are growing — they're going through the roof — when you consider that the government, this Deputy Premier, is cutting funding for at-risk kids.

The opposition has asked again and again that the auditor general be chosen as the Olympic auditor. The organizing committee…

J. MacPhail: The Olympic organizing committee is not subject to the Auditor General Act. So I ask again, before taxpayers are put on the hook for millions in cost overruns: will the Deputy Premier just do the right thing, stop stonewalling, stop avoiding the question and ensure that the auditor general is hired to provide regular public reports on Olympic spending so that we don't all wake up in 2010 with a massive Olympic hangover?

Hon. C. Clark: The reality is that I think taxpayers know that having the first government that has balanced a budget in a decade — a real balanced budget in a decade — is a better protection than they will certainly get from anything that member could offer in terms of advice or experience in this House.

But let's remember that those members don't oppose the Olympics because of the cost; those members oppose the Olympics because they don't want British Columbia to do well. They want to shut the doors to British Columbia. That's why Carole James and the NDP have so assiduously avoided any kind of policy that would promote British Columbia, any kind of economic thrust that would make sure we move forward.

If those members are so confident of their vision, let them stand up and voice a vision. We on this side of the House do have a vision for government. Our vision includes the Olympics in 2010. It includes a thriving forest industry. It includes a mining industry that's reinvigorated across the province. It includes those thousands of jobs that come from aquaculture in coastal communities. That is our vision of British Columbia. If the members across the way have one, I call on them today…

Hon. C. Clark: …to find the courage…. Let their leader run for office, and let's compare where British Columbians…

B. Belsey: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. Yesterday both Carole James and the leader of the NDP stood in this House and clearly made it evident that the Georgia Strait Alliance report on aquaculture is the NDP aquaculture policy. One of the things that come out very clearly in the NDP aquaculture policy…. Carole James says that we do not consult with first nations. That is just not true. She wants to shut down 4,000 jobs in this province and hundreds of jobs for first nations. That's not fair.

I ask the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries if he'll please stand in this House and tell the people of the province how he has consulted with first nations.

Hon. J. van Dongen: First of all, it's important to note that there are many first nations people working on fish farms and in processing plants. As time goes on, there are more and more first nations interested in aquaculture because, unlike the NDP, they know we are committed to a sustainable industry. We have first nation leaders such as Richard Harry of the Aboriginal Aquaculture Association; leaders such as Percy Starr, the Kitasoo band, leaders such as Russell Gamble of the Kitkatla, who don't want to be told by environmental groups or the NDP what they should do or think. They know that aquaculture provides sustainable jobs for their community and provides a way for their people to have meaningful employment in their bands.

Hon. R. Harris: In this chamber, I call second reading of Bill 12. In Committee A we'll be resuming Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll be debating the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

This act introduces changes to the School Act and to the Independent School Act. Beginning in the 2004-05 school year, school boards will adopt generally accepted accounting procedures, commonly known as GAAP. Boards will also be included as part of the government financial entity for financial purposes, as has been long recommended by the auditor general.

With regard to both the School Act and the Independent School Act, redundant references to the Ministers of Finance and of Revenue are replaced with the correct reference to the appropriate ministers.

School boards will now be included in the government reporting entity by an amendment to the definition of the government reporting entity in the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. In order to meet the requirements of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, this bill gives the Minister of Education the ability to request financial reports from school boards in the form and at the times necessary.

In order for the financial information supplied by school boards to be consistent with the information supplied by other government organizations included in the government reporting entity, the information must be prepared according to generally accepted accounting principles.

A stakeholder committee consisting of representatives of the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Finance, the office of the comptroller general and a cross-section of school districts around the province worked to identify the changes that were necessary for the full implementation of GAAP for school boards throughout British Columbia.

The changes to the School Act required for school boards to use GAAP are changing and deleting definitions and financial procedures that are inconsistent or redundant in relation to GAAP. For example, the term "annual capital grant" will be changed to "annual facility grant" as these grants are used for both operating and capital purposes as defined by GAAP. It is true that all of these amendments are certainly housekeeping in nature to bring us in line with GAAP.

With the implementation of GAAP, government is providing school districts with an additional $35 million a year to assist boards in covering the costs of pensions, vacation pay and future employee benefits.

Previously, districts had discretion whether to fund these liabilities, and some districts have fully or partially funded these costs whereas other districts have not. Districts that have already set aside funding for employee future benefits and vacation pay will be able to direct their share of the GAAP funding to improve student achievement. For example, the Nechako Lake school district has met all its GAAP requirements and is free to use its share of the GAAP funding — a little over $300,000 a year — to provide services for students in the classroom. School districts that, in the past, have not set aside adequate funding for future costs can now use GAAP funding to offset these costs instead of taking dollars out of the classroom.

Let me be clear. Once a school district has accounted for its outstanding liabilities under GAAP, this additional $35 million in funding to school districts can be directed to students in the classroom, and therefore all school districts will directly benefit from this additional $35 million.

Education is our government's number one priority. These changes are necessary for the responsible, accountable management of the public education system in British Columbia and are consistent with long-term recommendations that the auditor general has been making to government. These changes are long overdue. The procedures and accounting requirements contained in GAAP will ensure consistency and clarity in the management of school district finances across the province, and the inclusion of school boards and the government reporting entity will ensure increased accountability to the public. I move that the bill now be read a second time.

Hon. T. Christensen: I move that Bill 12 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 12, Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2004, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. R. Harris: I now call on Committee of Supply to continue for the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

J. Kwan: Five aboriginal service planning groups have been set up for each of the province's regions: the Fraser, interior, north, Vancouver coastal and Vancouver Island. The service planning groups will help create the aboriginal regional authorities and assist in the devolution of services to these authorities. The minister said earlier that people are working on the devolution plan. What will happen to the aboriginal services branch of the Ministry of Children and Family Development once the authorities are created?

Hon. C. Clark: We will keep responsibility for standards, development and those broad provincial responsibilities, and then the operations component of it will move to the regional authorities.

J. Kwan: The minister said components of it will move to the regional authorities. Can the minister elaborate and provide more details and clarification on that?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, we're very much still in the planning process. This transition is due to be made in 2006-07.

I understand that 131 of the 200 bands in B.C. fall under 19 agencies. Are the remaining 69 bands administered by the ministry?

Hon. C. Clark: There are complex relationships in the aboriginal communities, as there are in any very broad community. So we are working with the aboriginal communities to get some direction from them that will help us resolve those questions.

J. Kwan: What about the issue of capacity-building? How would that be resolved with, particularly, the remaining 69? We understand that the 131 would be delegated, would be devolved. But the remaining 69 that the ministry is still working on in terms of capacity-building — what plans are being undertaken in the ministry for that?

Hon. C. Clark: The plan, by the way, isn't to devolve services to each of these bands separately. I don't know if that's the assumption the member made. Just in case it was, I'll correct her on that.

The other issue, too, is that we are continuing to work with aboriginal communities on capacity. That's precisely going to be our focus for this coming year, and that's why we've formulated this process. We recognize — and the aboriginal community, in particular, recognizes — that there are capacity issues. We're going to work to address those.

Hon. C. Clark: The budget we have for planning includes planning for capacity-building and working on some of those projects. Remember, this is a project that's due to come to its full realization in 2006-07. Through the service redesign that we're doing where we are changing the mix of services we provide currently, under the current governance structure that we have as well, we're making sure that we are better reflective of the needs of the aboriginal community, and that is very much a capacity-building process.

J. Kwan: Well, I would like to get a breakdown in terms of how much is for the planning and how much is for the capacity-building.

Hon. C. Clark: They are going to be for this period very much related. In fact, they will be the same thing.

J. Kwan: Capacity-building and planning, I would say, are not the same things. Certainly, building capacity for the community is very much different from the interim authority planning processes. According to a letter that was sent to the regional aboriginal planning committee chair, it actually highlights the notion that…. Let me just put on the record what it says.

I would like to know more specifically: out of that $2.03 million that is dedicated to aboriginal planning processes, how does that budget break down? What is it for? Capacity-building is actually not even mentioned at all. The minister claims this is one and the same. Planning, generally speaking, in my view, is not the same thing as capacity-building. So I would like the minister to clarify the $2.03 million.

Hon. C. Clark: We're reinvesting $5 million in direct capacity-building through the service redesign project, which I already talked about. The member has raised this letter, and I've responded to questions about this letter quite a few times in estimates so far.

The issue of the planning money is money we are providing to ensure that we can move to governance. Part of that is planning for capacity-building, figuring out where the gaps are, figuring out how we're going to fill those gaps. Capacity-building can't always start with just spending the money. We actually have to figure out how we're going to spend it and where it would be spent best based on the needs of the community.

J. Kwan: Well, yes, I brought this letter up before, but it was in the context of confirming the fact that over the three years the government did indeed cut $170 million out of the Ministry of Children and Family Development, which this minister consistently denies. It was in that context when the quote was put on record.

Now, in this context, I'm asking specifically about the aboriginal planning process and the dollars within it. If you go to the attachment of the letter where it says, "Budget details are further outlined," it actually doesn't give you very much detail at all other than this information. I'll just quote part of it for the record: "It is proposed that of the $2.03 million fixed budget, $320,000 be allocated to each committee with a top-up to the interior and north regions of $75,000, each in recognition of the extraordinary travels, and $70,000 would also be allocated to each of the four political organizations."

That breaks down part of that money and where it goes. Mostly, it's going to planning meetings — it sounds like to me — to facilitate travel, to allow for the members to get together to talk about the planning process for devolution.

Then the letter goes on to say in this attachment: "However, as this does represent a reduction from the previous level's expenditure, it will be important for the committees to begin to reduce current expenditures to be in line with budgets in 2004 and '05." As identi-

fied, the budget for the planning process is being reduced. It was budgeted at $7.8 million, and it was reduced to $3.53 million. It's a significant reduction. So all the planning processes that took place before, based on what they thought the budget was going to be…. They are now forced to rework that plan to accommodate a reduction in the budget. Once again, there's no talk about capacity-building. Hence, I would argue that there are issues associated with the government's revised plan on the budget.

So there's no further information from the minister with respect to how the budget would actually break down for capacity-building and where it would fit. Having said that, there is the reduction in budget from $7.8 million to $3.53 million. The amounts that are reduced from the budget — where does the rest go? Where is it planned to be spent, in the reduction?

Hon. C. Clark: This is a new budget for this year. The member stands up and says she doesn't think that we should be spending money for aboriginal communities to meet and discuss and plan how they would want to deliver these services. I suppose if she wants to argue that we should cut that budget down to zero, she can make that argument, but I fundamentally disagree with her.

This is a big province, and people need to…. You can't get together across this province for free. It certainly costs money. I would further argue that it's important that aboriginal people be part of this planning process. If there is no budget to support people to get together and plan, there will be no ability to include aboriginal people in the planning process. The member can sit in her cosy Vancouver riding and argue that, well, maybe we shouldn't have travel budgets for people who are taking over a service to be able to do planning, but I fundamentally disagree with that. It's a big province. We need to include aboriginal people in the plans that we're making. They need to be the people that are primarily making the plan. It can't be just ministry-driven. The only way to do that is to make sure that we provide some travel budget and some support for them to be able to fully participate in what will be an incredibly exciting and, I think, in many ways revolutionary change in the way we deliver services for aboriginal children in British Columbia.

J. Kwan: The minister has once again demonstrated that she's in a state of delirium, because I said no such thing. All the stuff that she just said comes out of — I don't know where — some deep corner, I'm sure, in her own mind.

She just claimed that I don't support travel costs. I said no such thing. I asked a question about the budget and its breakdown. The information I quoted from a letter from her own deputy talks about how the budget is to be broken down and where it is to be spent, which includes travel expenditures. I asked a question about where the government is providing moneys to the aboriginal community for the planning process as well as for capacity-building. How does that budget break down, where does it flow, and what are the programs involved in capacity-building?

She answered no such question and then started to make up information as though I actually asked it. It is clear that her brain has orbited somewhere else but certainly not to the task at hand and the responsibilities she's been charged with as the minister responsible.

I have always — and let's be clear — advocated for supports for the aboriginal community, for capacity-building and for their ability to make decisions for their own community. I have always supported and advocated for that in every context, whether it be in the area of the Ministry of Children and Family Development or for the settlement of treaty negotiations and treaty land claims issues. I've always advocated for the aboriginal community as the first people of this land and for their rights to be recognized.

The minister can make up all the false statements she wants and assert somehow that the opposition is saying these things. It simply is not true. You know what? It's not credible either, and nobody believes her. She can engage in her own delusional mind all she wants, but it does not help the debate.

J. Kwan: It does not help the debate when the minister spouts out this misinformation.

I asked a question which the minister did not answer. Of the $7.8 million that was budgeted, only $3.5 million will now be spent for the planning process. Where is the rest of the $4.3 million being spent?

Hon. C. Clark: The rest of it is going to fund transition costs with respect to community living devolution this year.

J. Kwan: So money that was budgeted for the aboriginal planning process is being taken away and put into community living. That's the answer the minister just gave. Isn't that interesting?

Then in the meantime, the deputy has written to the regional aboriginal planning committee chairs and told them that they have to rework their budget because their money has been taken away into community living programs. That's interesting. That's what the government's planning.

In terms of priority, on what basis has the government come forward with this decision to take money away from aboriginal regional planning authorities and divert it — $4.3 million worth — to community living?

Hon. C. Clark: That $7.8 million budget the member has identified was never in its entirety intended to be devoted for aboriginal planning. First of all, I need to correct her on that. She seems to be operating under a misapprehension, deliberate or otherwise, about that.

The other thing I need to clarify for her is that capacity-building is about redirecting our current funding to better support aboriginal children and families.

That is not a separate budget. When I talk about the new money that's going to be going in to support aboriginal services, that's through service redesign. That's separate from the planning budget.

J. Kwan: It's not credible when the minister says that the $7.8 million was never intended to be spent in the area of aboriginal planning processes for devolution, because the deputy minister's own letter actually states: "Because of this reduction, however, as this does represent a reduction from the previous level of expenditure, it will be important for the committees to begin to reduce current expenditures to be in line with budgets in 2004 and 2005."

If that was the case and the money was never intended be there, why would there be budgets already established before? And why would, after the fact, committee chairs have been written a letter telling them their budget has now been reduced, and therefore they have to reduce the expenditures?

There must be some other rationale, though, where the pressure came that the government decided that they have to rob Peter to pay Paul. That is, I know, the practice of this government, and it is happening right here in the aboriginal planning processes. It's happening in education. It has happened in many other areas since this government has been in charge. It's not any different based on, again, the facts before us and the documentations that back up this set of information.

The aboriginal community will have less money for planning. The capacity-building the minister claims is all wrapped up in the planning process, which I find difficult to accept, to be frank…. Capacity-building means resources in the community to allow the community to do the work and deliver the work and the services that would be critical for community members. We know that in the Ministry of Children and Family Development we have, over three years, a $170 million reduction. We know by that alone that capacity in the community would also be reduced.

That's not just within the Ministry of Children and Family Development in terms of reductions. Capacity to support the communities elsewhere, from other services and other ministries, has also been substantively reduced since this government has been elected. Cumulatively there is an onslaught of capacity reduction, if you will, because of the government's cuts in budgets across ministries and across government. The impacts will be cumulative.

As we speak today, Mr. Chair, March 31 is the last day that women's centres, as an example, would have funding.

The Chair: Women's centres are not part of this debate. Please proceed with this….

J. Kwan: Non-profits that have lost moneys, lost support and lost provincial dollars will be impacted, and there would be cumulative impacts. Things like women's centres provide for….

The Chair: Member, I asked you to please move on. This is not part of the debate.

J. Kwan: Children with mothers who need services across the community, in terms of capacity, vary, so child protection issues…. The issues of violence and abuse often come into hand, where families will seek refuge to deal with these kinds of challenges. They need the community's capacity to be there with services they could access so that they can deal with these challenges, Mr. Chair. Without those services, women who are faced with violence with children…. If they can't access these services because they have been eliminated because of budget cuts from this government, it puts the children in jeopardy.

We also know, and certainly it is the case in my own riding, that the representation of children at risk who might need to be in care is overwhelmingly represented by the aboriginal community.

The capacity question does not operate in a silo. It doesn't operate independent of everything else that is going on in the community or independent of what this government is doing — closing services and closing supports that women and children need. There is a direct connect with respect to closures of a variety of services.

Capacity-building is hampered in a number of ways, and if you talk to any of the aboriginal community leaders, any of the non-profit community leaders that provide these services, they will tell you exactly that, as they have told me in the last little while, Mr. Chair.

It doesn't cut it. For the minister to claim that she actually cares about children, cares about capacity-building for the community and particularly in the aboriginal community, at the same time as she's supporting a government that cuts the capacity support…. It just doesn't cut it. You can't have it both ways. It's completely unclear, from the minister's answer, where the capacity-building support is going to be coming from for the aboriginal community and how much is dedicated to it.

A November 4, 2003, memo from the ADM of the ministry to the former deputy minister, Chris Haynes, outlines the performance monitoring plan for the delegated agencies. This memo notes the aboriginal audit and review process to be undertaken every three years in the aboriginal agencies. These audits will ensure that agencies comply with the rules set out in the Aboriginal Operational and Practice Standards and Indicators manual. First question to the minister on this: where can I get a copy of this Aboriginal Operational and Practice Standards and Indicators manual?

Hon. C. Clark: I'm advised that it would be no problem to be able to send the member a copy. I do

want to correct, though, I think, some of the deliberate misstatements the member has put on the record. First of all, there is a planning budget….

The Chair: Minister, that is not appropriate — to call it a "deliberate misstatement." Would you retract that, please.

Hon. C. Clark: Oh, sorry, Mr. Chair — some of the misapprehensions the member has that's she's discussed. I can't just let them sit on the record, because they're just absolutely not correct.

There is a transition budget. The transition budget is the budget that we pay for planning out of. Planning is being done to change the governance of the delivery of services for first nations and aboriginal people. That is one budget. Then there is a budget where we provide actual services. There has been a significant new investment of money into delivery of services for aboriginal people. That is where capacity-building happens.

The member stands up and says on the one hand — and she's done this many times in the House and many times in this debate — that she thinks we are spending far too much money on planning. Now today she stands up and indicates she doesn't think we're spending enough on planning. Aside from the fact that the member blows hot and cold day to day, the fact is that we are spending less on planning. I agree with one of her views — her earlier view that indeed, we could be spending less on planning. So we are.

There is also an issue of capacity-building, though. That's where we've invested $5 million in new money in building capacity in communities. That is in actually delivering services. Those new services that are being delivered by aboriginal agencies and communities will build the capacity so that when we move to a new governance model, the capacity will be there for the new authority to be able to deliver those services.

J. Kwan: The minister is deliberately trying to mix apples and oranges. The questions that I raised about planning processes and the potential misuse of the funds happened to be under the auspices of the government that hired Doug Walls without any tendering processes. Then, out of that, moneys have disappeared into the system; $400,000 has disappeared. A boatload of money has been spent. As much as $500 to $700 a day has been paid out to Doug Walls accordingly. This is part of the planning process for the devolution in the community living sector.

Those questions were raised by me. Make no mistake about that. The minister refused to answer those questions. She tried to shut down debate. She, in fact, did shut down debate, because she just stonewalled and didn't answer the questions. Those questions that I raised were in that context.

The aboriginal planning process is a completely different kettle of fish. I'm trying to find out what is going on in the ministry and where the dollars have gone. The minister had just gone on record to say that from the aboriginal planning dollars that were budgeted as $7.8 million, $4.3 million has been taken out and put into community living again.

Let's be clear in terms of what we're talking about, in spite of the minister's best efforts to confuse matters and to create statements in her own mind and pretend that somehow those statements were made by me or the opposition. It's untrue. I want to correct the record, Mr. Chair, and hold the minister accountable for her area of responsibility and hold the government accountable to be open and transparent and to actually do what they say and claim they're doing. You can't have it both ways, Mr. Chair, and that's what the minister is trying to do. She is trying to mix apples and oranges, as though somehow confusing the matter would actually serve the public interest in these estimates debates. Let's be clear in terms of what's going on here. The information I have is facts based on letters and information received from the community, who are part of the planning process.

The minister says she will get us a copy of the Aboriginal Operational and Practice Standards and Indicators manual. I presume we will receive that along with the other materials we've requested in the estimates process. If that is not the case, I would ask the minister to correct that, but I will just make that assumption. In the meantime, can the minister explain what guidelines are set out in the manual?

Hon. C. Clark: The member has stood up in this House so many times, even during the estimates process, that it is quite a turnaround, I must say, in her opinions. As I recall, we started out the estimates process with this member standing up and making what she regarded as a fiery speech about how we were spending $25 million on planning. Boy, she sure said that with a conviction that sounded to me like she thought we were spending too much on planning.

Now she stands up today — I understand it has been about a week that we've been at these estimates debates — and says she doesn't think we're spending enough on planning. Well, the member has to decide. Does she think the budget is too high? Does she think the budget is too low? She can't carry on through these debates in the House constantly trying to make sure she doesn't reveal her position on anything.

I think British Columbians expect her to actually have a position on something. I think British Columbians want to know where the NDP stands on things. I'm sure a lot of British Columbians want to know where she stands on this issue, and if she stands up and says one thing one day and says another thing another day, it doesn't serve that cause very well.

J. Kwan: If the minister wants to go back and debate the issues I raised about spending on the planning process with respect to community living, I would be happy to do that. I would be happy to put down once again the chronology of the Doug Walls scandal for the minister's information in terms of what I was talking

about. In terms of that clarification, it appears to me that she does not know what I was talking about and what I was referring to.

I would be happy to point out for the minister again where the dollars have gone and where the questions were raised with respect to that under Doug Walls. I would be very happy to do that, and then I would be happy to bring back all of the debates and the different numbers that these ministers have provided around the planning processes that have occurred on the restructuring for this ministry, from the former minister to this current minister.

They range from $25 million to $100 million, and now we're talking about $7.8 million being shrunk to $3.5 million. Then, when asked a question in terms of what the government actually produced on the community living side with these planning dollars, very little information was provided from the minister. In fact, questions about the entire process that was led by Doug Walls, in which the moneys have gone missing…

The tone of the debate is getting a little bit out of hand here, so I would just like everybody to take a deep breath and bring the level down a tiny bit. Also, we've heard this same debate so often now that it is becoming very, very repetitive. Let's get back to debating the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

J. Kwan: Everything I've said about the issues around the planning dollars relate to the Ministry of Children and Family Development. Doug Walls happened under the Ministry of Children and Family….

I'm fully aware of that. I'm sure this House is fully aware of that. You have repeated it several times now, and it's becoming very, very repetitive. Let us proceed with your questions. You say you have a number of questions to ask. Please proceed.

J. Kwan: I would be happy to ask the questions, Mr. Chair, but it was the minister who actually raised the confusion in her mind about what I was referring to in terms of the planning dollars, which I took issue with. As for clarification for this minister, just moments ago she said she didn't know where I stood on the planning dollars, and so the Doug Walls scandal and the issues around those planning dollars are now on the record and have been made clear, I trust, for the minister. If the minister needs further clarification, I'll be happy to provide that, Mr. Chair. It would be your call to decide whether or not I would be able to do that.

J. Kwan: The minister goes: "More or less." Because the restructuring and planning are two separate issues under different areas, maybe I should go back and talk about the Doug Walls scandal and the lost dollars that I believe came out of that. Maybe I should go back and clarify that for the minister.

The Chair: Member, we've already spoken about that issue. Just proceed with your questioning.

J. Kwan: I'm just perplexed as to what the minister is confused about. She appears to not know where I stand on the issues around planning dollars.

J. Kwan: She says she doesn't. Okay, then. Let's take this opportunity and go back and talk about the planning dollars that happened under two areas in the Ministry of Children and Family Development. Let's go and talk about that. Let's first talk about the interim authority in the community living area in terms of those planning dollars and where they went and where the money's been spent.

Let me put these questions to the minister. The planning dollars for the Interim Authority for Community Living under Doug Walls's leadership….

The Chair: Member, take your seat, please. I don't know. Are you having trouble understanding the Chair? I've repeatedly warned you that this issue has been dealt with time and time again. We're not going to go through this debate again. Proceed with your questioning — another line of questioning, please.

J. Kwan: Then maybe the minister should be directed to stop asking me for clarification in terms of where I stand on these issues. We cannot proceed with debate on the aboriginal planning dollars if she insists she is confused about where I stand on planning dollars, and I must make clear where I stand on planning dollars on these two separate issues. Let's be clear about that.

J. Kwan: The minister still sits there and goes: "More or less." She is hiding under the notion that she could refuse to answer questions in this House, because it is her prerogative to not answer questions in this House, as she has already done and continues to do. Then to actually say, "Well, I don't know where you stand, so therefore I can't answer your questions," and to pretend that is reality….

The Doug Walls issue is going to be canvassed under the Premier's estimates. I'm going to bring all these questions to the Premier, and then maybe the Premier will answer some of these questions in the interest of openness and accountability.

I asked the minister the question, which she did not answer, and that is to explain the guidelines that are set out in the manual.

Hon. C. Clark: I was simply asking the member whether she thought we should be spending more on planning or less on planning, and she quite artfully dodged the question. I'm sure that's something she learned after a decade working for the NDP government.

Just to also be clear, the member…. To put the member's priorities in context, it is difficult to understand where she stands on these issues. I think we've made it very clear where we stand on these issues because we have made our budgeting numbers quite public. The member has mentioned….

Just to put the member's priorities in context — in case, Mr. Chair, anyone would accuse you of not being fair — the member has raised issues about foster care seven times in the House. That's an issue that's very important to British Columbians. She's mentioned the Doug Walls audit well over 30 times. She's mentioned Doug Walls 120 times. She has talked about autism, 79. She's talked about child abuse, 39 — just so we can get a sense of where this member's priorities are. She has been called to order over 34 times in this chamber, and she repeatedly continually refuses to respect the rules of this House, although I'm sure she knows them. She's certainly been instructed in them enough times in the Legislature.

We've been up debating this for at least 21 hours, probably 23 hours now. I'm happy to continue the debate, but I look forward to getting questions from the member. I look forward to getting questions on new subjects from the member as soon as she's able to put some forward on the floor of the House.

J. Kwan: Isn't that interesting? The minister actually has time to go and do a word search to find out how many times I said what words — that's interesting — but she doesn't have time to find the answers to the questions I've put to the minister.

And you know what? In case my staff and you guys are watching, I know I had said that I might well be finished by six o'clock today in the estimates debate of the Ministry of Children and Family Development. At the rate things are going, we may not be able to finish by six o'clock. Just so everybody knows, that's on record as well.

The Chair: Member, if I can interject for a minute. If we can be very specific about a question, the minister will either answer to her fullest…. And then we'll move on to another question. I think that would be a good process for us to follow from here. If you could start with that, I would really appreciate it.

J. Kwan: As is the case and the practice in this House, what I was doing was actually responding, of course, to the minister's assertions and engaging in this dialogue. She claimed that I said so many words so many times. I was simply responding to the minister on that, Mr. Chair.

The minister for the third time now…. I'm sure this will show up once again in her word count. How many times did I say: "Will the minister explain what guidelines are set out in the manual"? This is the third time I've asked the question, which the minister has not answered. I'm sure her word count — people busily counting those words, for how many times I said what and when — will show up once again. Maybe she'll finally answer the question, for a change.

Hon. C. Clark: As I said about five questions ago, we will send her a copy of that manual. She can have a look for herself. I don't have every manual and policy of government here in the chamber. We have a lot of budget information in the chamber, but we don't have that here. I will endeavour to get that to her as soon as we possibly can. Much of it is on the website, but there may be other issues in the manual that's she is interested in. I've made the commitment that I will send that to her. She can ask me again if I'm going to send it to her, and just for her future reference, the answers I've given her will stand.

J. Kwan: Let's just be clear in terms of what I asked the minister. I first asked the minister if I could get a copy of the Aboriginal Operational Practices and Standards Indicators manual. The minister said: "We could get you a copy." So I got up and said : "I assume, then, the minister will send it to us along with all the other information we requested." She ignored that, and then she went on to some diatribe about how many words I said, when.

Then I asked the minister the question about explaining for the purposes of the debate right now, given that we don't have a copy of the manual before us, what guidelines are set out in that manual. I asked that question three times. The minister didn't answer the question, and then she got up and pretended she answered the question.

This is the kind of debate that we're engaging in with this minister, and these are the kinds of answers we're getting from this minister.

J. Kwan: The minister goes: "And that's why I love estimates debate." You know what? It does not serve the public's interest for the minister to conduct herself in this way. She's not answering the questions put to her. She pretends they've been answered when they have not. Then she twists the question into something

else and orbits out into Mars and thinks somehow that is reality, when it isn't.

This estimates process goes to show you how difficult it is for British Columbians to get the straight facts from this government. This minister, this Deputy Premier exemplifies the worst of openness, transparency and accountability. She's just demonstrated that in this House in these last days during the estimates process of the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

So the minister says she doesn't have the information about the manual. She says, "Oh well, it is on the website," but she has no knowledge base about that. Once again it shows you how out of touch this minister is about anything that is going on in her own ministry. She knows virtually nothing that is going on within her own ministry. This is yet another example that demonstrates that very fact.

The understanding I have is that there will be an audit and review process for the aboriginal devolution process. Is there an audit for all the restructuring processes?

Hon. C. Clark: Can the member clarify? Is she talking about the regular audit we do of delegated agencies?

J. Kwan: It is my understanding that there will be audits for the aboriginal authorities, and there is going to be an audit of the planning process for the aboriginal community. Is that the case in terms of audits being done? Is it standardized for all the restructuring processes across the ministry, for all the regional authorities?

Hon. C. Clark: There is an audit, which I have talked about extensively already in estimates.

J. Kwan: That's the Doug Walls audit. Aside from the Doug Walls audit, is there a standardized audit that is being undertaken for all of the authorities around restructuring?

Hon. C. Clark: The member asked about the aboriginal agencies. The answer to that question is, first of all, that we do a regular review of the delegated agencies. We do practise audits regularly. That's part of a regular process we engage in, so that's ongoing. I don't know if she is talking about that, but that's the answer to that one.

If she is talking about the planning process, yes, we are, as I have talked about a number of times already in estimates. It was early on, so perhaps the member has forgotten my answer. I will repeat it for her. Yes, we have engaged in an audit that is forward-looking for the planning process for the aboriginal communities. We are engaged in that cooperatively with the aboriginal leadership.

J. Kwan: In addition to the three-year audits, what other measures will be undertaken to ensure that appropriate standards of conduct are upheld in the devolution of services to subcontractors?

Hon. C. Clark: I don't know what the member is referring to when she talks about subcontractors. There are things we call delegated agencies. Perhaps that's what she's talking about. Perhaps she can clarify for me.

J. Kwan: You can call them delegated agencies, but they are people that the ministry has contracted, or agencies that have subcontracted someone else, to deliver the services. That's what I'm talking about.

Hon. C. Clark: Perhaps the member could clarify or could tell me what services, specifically, she is asking about. I'm a bit confused about the language she's using. Is she talking about services in aboriginal communities? And is she talking about child protection services that are delivered by delegated agencies? Is she talking about some other kind of service that's provided? I need a little bit of direction in order to be able to answer this question.

J. Kwan: I'm talking about and asking these questions in the context of the aboriginal agencies and the aboriginal community and, therefore, of the devolution processes within the aboriginal community and contracted agencies that deliver services — agencies sometimes within their own agencies. They actually have, really, an arrangement of subcontracts, if you will, where they have someone else deliver the said services that they have contracted with the ministry. That's what I'm talking about.

Hon. C. Clark: If the member is talking about the services that are provided by delegated agencies, which delegated agencies take responsibility for, we do audits of that regularly.

J. Kwan: To be clear, the ministry does three-year audits. The ministry does audits into the delegated agencies and the services they provide and how they provide them, whether or not they are subcontracted or delivered by some other person outside of the agency. That's the understanding I have.

If that's correct, then let me ask the minister this question. The memo I indicated — which is the memo of November 4, 2003, from the ADM to the former deputy minister and which outlines the performance-monitoring plan for the delegated agencies — notes the support issues and problems that may arise with the delegated agencies. The memo states: "The structure of aboriginal services branch supports the agencies to fulfil delegated responsibilities on behalf of the direc-

tor. When specific problems arise in an agency, aboriginal services branch provides consultation guidelines to address difficult issues before they escalate. If the director loses confidence in the ability of the delegated staff, the director can withdraw delegation."

Hon. C. Clark: That's our director of child protection. That's Jeremy Berland.

J. Kwan: Did the minister say Jeremy Gorman? Sorry, I didn't catch the name.

J. Kwan: That's the individual sitting next to the minister. I don't believe the minister actually introduced some of the new staff that has come in, and I didn't catch the name. Thank you for that.

The Chair: It would be appropriate if the minister would like to take this moment to introduce her staff. You're okay with that?

Hon. C. Clark: We could take it over if necessary, and the ministry would deliver those services instead.

J. Kwan: Are there sets of guidelines, then, which the director uses to make a determination when problems arise, or what would be deemed to be problems, that would actually cause the director to take over the delegated authority from the aboriginal community? Under what circumstances?

Hon. C. Clark: The only member of my staff that I haven't introduced is actually Kim Henderson, who is the ADM of transition services. She wasn't in the House when I did my introductions. Everyone else who is with me today I have introduced in the House already. For some reason, civil servants don't enjoy the notoriety as much as politicians do, so I will leave it at that.

We measure the quality of services, the standards of service that delegated aboriginal agencies deliver against the policies that are set out in the manual that I've talked about with the member, which I'm sending to the member. We monitor practice. We review cases as required against that. That's the standard measurement we use. As I said, that is on its way to the member's office.

J. Kwan: Is it the director's decision alone to withdraw the delegated authority?

J. Kwan: The minister is not involved at all or the deputy minister is not involved at all or the ADM is not involved at all. It solely is the responsibility and decision of the director alone.

Is there an appeal mechanism when the decision is made in that context? Who does one appeal to if there's a disagreement in the decision?

Hon. C. Clark: There is the possibility of judicial review. It's important to note, though, that the director of child protection is also an ADM.

J. Kwan: Deputies are not involved; ministers are not involved. It is just the director who, in this instance, also happens to be an ADM as well. Judicial review would be the appeal mechanism. In the case where a decision to withdraw the delegated authority is made, is it then just the ministry that will take over? Or would there be an assigned interim authority?

Hon. C. Clark: It is an important piece of information for the member to understand that we don't delegate. The director of child protection does not delegate authority to agencies. She or he — in this case, he — delegates authority to individuals. So if there is a withdrawal of delegation of authority, it is from individuals. It is, I understand, historically a very rare case where an agency would have its delegated authority taken away. It is because that revocation of delegated authority happens normally in the cases of individuals to whom that delegation has been granted.

J. Kwan: In the case where the withdrawal of delegated authority has been made, confidence has been lost. Who then becomes the assigned interim authority? Is there a specific person within the ministry who would take over? How would that process work?

Hon. C. Clark: In the unusual circumstances that this happens, the agency would either staff up to replace that individual who had lost their delegated authority, or we have in the past also loaned professional staff to delegated agencies to continue supporting their work if there has been a revocation of delegated authority to an individual.

J. Kwan: Earlier this year the Ministry of Children and Family Development was in the process of identifying a lead agency to enter into contract with, for the delivery of aboriginal youth services in Vancouver. The agency is expected to enter into arrangements with other folks for service delivery. This process was supposed to be completed by January 22, 2004. So let's get an update, first of all, with respect to this process.

Hon. C. Clark: In Vancouver the aboriginal groups came together and made a decision about who would be the lead agency, and we are now acting on that.

Hon. C. Clark: It is about to be negotiated. It would be for a standard term of one to three years. It is important, though, for the member to differentiate that that contract is for non-delegated services. I don't know if she is linking her previous set of questions about delegated authority to this subject. But they are in many ways unrelated because what we're talking about with the agency in Vancouver, the lead agency for aboriginal services, are non-delegated services.

Hon. C. Clark: They are providing family development work with youth, including safe-house services. They are doing family preservation work, early intervention with families, counselling work and outreach.

J. Kwan: So those would be some of the services that are currently being delivered by the aboriginal services branch of the MCFD?

J. Kwan: Perhaps the minister can make the distinction, then. What services will be delivered by the aboriginal services branch of the Ministry of Children and Family Development?

J. Kwan: Always helpful — the minister — with her answers. Another case in point. We'll research that information. With the very many staff that we have, we will just have to research that information to make that comparison, because the minister is not willing to provide that information on the record.

Is this agency going to be solely responsible for setting up and also managing the integrated aboriginal youth centre?

Hon. C. Clark: I'm advised that the centre itself will be opening sometime very soon, and the final version of it will probably be up and running in the next couple of months.

J. Kwan: Is it anticipated that these non-delegated services, the ones that we talked about earlier, would be delivered through the integrated aboriginal youth centre?

Hon. C. Clark: I'm advised that it would be delivered through the centre and its affiliated agencies, which will be working in partnership across Vancouver.

J. Kwan: The contract that has been entered into — is it the case that its main purpose is to provide services and manage the integrated aboriginal youth centre?

Hon. C. Clark: Its main purpose, as I understand it, is to provide services and to manage the overall services for aboriginal children and youth in Vancouver.

J. Kwan: So that would be in addition. The integrated aboriginal youth centre would be services which the agency would provide and manage in addition to the other services we talked about.

Now, the budget. The minister says she doesn't know what the budget is, but the centre is expected to open any day now. It will be up and running in a couple of months, but the centre still doesn't know what the budget is, and that's still being negotiated. Time's running out, Mr. Chair. If the centre is going to be open any day now, one would think that some of these very important details would have been nailed down. Yet they aren't, so that's a bit worrisome.

What about startup costs? How much money is being given to the society for startup costs?

Hon. C. Clark: This is an effort to make sure that we coordinate the wide array of services that are provided in Vancouver. Of course, better coordination means better value for money. It means that we provide services better overall. It's a much-needed project. It's something we're working on now.

As I said, it's under negotiation. At the moment we're negotiating contracts, which is why we see so much in the news about services that are going to be provided and not being provided in Vancouver. We are in negotiation, and when that negotiation is complete, we'll be able to provide all of those numbers to the public.

J. Kwan: Then the MCFD document entitled Services to Aboriginal Youth and Their Families…. That does not provide for startup costs. That's wrong then. In the negotiation process, startup costs are being contemplated.

J. Kwan: The government document entitled Services to Aboriginal Youth and Their Families.

J. Kwan: The minister says she didn't know what document I'm talking about. I just gave her the title of her document, and she has no response whatsoever. I can only assume that the information provided in the government's document is not right. It doesn't provide for startup moneys for the setup of this centre. One would assume, then, that in the negotiations process startup costs would be provided to the centre.

We'll wait and see what happens with this centre — how much money they've been able to negotiate from the government to provide the services they need — and then see about what the budget is for the centre and see about how services can be delivered to the aboriginal community from that.

Last year the ministry was working on a public discussion paper on youth secure care. However, we cannot find this paper on the minister's website. My first question to the minister: was this working paper ever completed?

Hon. C. Clark: We are working on that now. We hope to have it out very shortly.

J. Kwan: The Secure Care Act was passed in July 2000. It was never proclaimed as law by the former government. As we know, the election was called. The new government came into office, and the Secure Care Act has, I think, sat idle until now. There is no information in terms of what's going on. The minister says they're working on it.

What exactly is the ministry working on with respect to this act? What changes are they anticipating? What other ideas have they got in the area around secure care?

Hon. C. Clark: The working paper will be part of the consultation, and when that consultation begins, the member will be a full part, I'm sure, of the debate we have about the ideas that need to be contained in it.

I point out that the member says her government brought in the secure care bill in June 2000, and then an election was called. It is true an election was called — in May 2001. Her government had quite a long bit of time to decide whether or not they were going to proclaim the act. They decided not to. That's because there are flaws in the act. We need to make sure that we address those flaws. We need to make sure that any changes we make to it reflect the will of the community, and that's going to be part of the discussion we embark on.

J. Kwan: It has now been more than three years since this government came to office. I remember distinctly how this minister, when she was in opposition, grilled the former Minister for Children and Families about the lack of action in this area. She went up and down the sides of former ministers who had this portfolio and talked about the urgency. Wouldn't you know it. Once this minister…. She's now in office.

J. Kwan: Maybe the member for Vancouver-Burrard thinks it's funny. It isn't funny. It's a very serious issue regarding youth and the safety of youth in our community. It is a pressing issue.

J. Kwan: It is a very serious issue. It has now been more than three years. The minister is now talking about engaging in a discussion, a discussion paper three years later. Is this an afterthought? "Oh, by the way, we forgot about that, and maybe we should be doing some discussion about it." I find that unbelievable, to be honest with you, especially in light of the fact that this minister, when she was in opposition, claimed that this was the number one priority for the government. Three years later they are now going to go out with some discussion paper. When can we anticipate this discussion paper will be available for the public, and when will discussion actually take place?

Hon. C. Clark: One of the significant things in the member's comments is particularly with respect to the number of ministers that I would have had the opportunity to question as a critic for Children and Families. I was a critic for Children and Families for maybe a year, a year and a half. I think it's quite possible that since at least I was elected, the NDP had eight or nine ministers. I think they had at least 13 ministers in the last decade. They had a revolving door of ministers not just in this ministry but in ministries across government.

That is a big departure for this government. We are moving into new stability for this ministry, which we have not seen in a long time. That's been, I think, reflected in the fact that the recruitment and retention numbers in our ministry are improving. We are finding it easier to recruit staff, and the staff that we have are staying longer. That, I think, reflects an understanding. We're not perfect; that's for sure. There are lots of changes we need to make to improve. But a general understanding that things are getting more stable and that there is a greater sense of certainty in the public….

I don't have anything to add to my previous answer that I gave on this issue with respect to safe care.

J. Kwan: I can tell you, Mr. Chair, that in the five years that I was part of the previous administration, to my recollection there were three ministers: Penny Priddy, Gretchen Brewin and then Ed John.

J. Kwan: Joy MacPhail was prior to Penny Priddy in the previous administration.

J. Kwan: Those were not in the last five years, to my recollection, Mr. Chair. They were in the years before…

J. Kwan: You know what? The minister might think it's funny. It is nothing…. Well, actually, under this government's administration, three years into the tenure, the former minister was forced to resign. Well, anyway, let me just leave it at that. Mr. Chair. This government's track record is such that the former minister was forced to resign under a scandal. Let me just leave it at that — proud record we have there.

In any event, the minister says they're working on it. She has no further answer on what's going on with secure care. It's been more than three years since this government came into office. We're talking about pressing issues about the safety of children and youth, particularly high-risk youth, and no action's been done.

We don't even know when this discussion will actually take place. The ministry claims that they've been working on a discussion paper, but we've seen nothing to date. I would say that either this issue has not been a priority for the government or, because the ministry has been in complete chaos since the government took over, they've gapped this issue entirely. I think it's probably a combination of both, and hence we don't have any new information on secure care and the status of that act.

Let me ask this question anyway. I suspect the minister wouldn't know the answer or wouldn't provide any information about it. That would be: are there any considerations being made for aboriginal youth in the area of secure care?

Hon. C. Clark: That's why we're doing consultation. Further than that, I've answered this question quite fully already, and I have nothing further to add to that.

J. Kwan: If you look in the Hansard record of the minister's answers, you will note there's a pattern. The pattern is, "I don't know what's going on. I can't say. We'll get back to you. We're working on it," and in spite of the length of time which the minister claims she's working on issues: "I don't have any updates." Then she always closes with this answer: "And I've answered that question at length, and that would be the fourth, tenth, eighth time" — or whatever — "that I've answered that question." That's how it always goes. That's the pattern.

Let me just say this. Secure care from this government — and in fact, many of the issues on children and families for this government — have in my view been put on a back burner. They've slashed the funding in the ministry at an unprecedented rate. Over three years, $170 million has been cut. There's chaos in the ministry and scandals within the ministry.

Families and children and the agencies that provide those services are left out there wondering what will happen to the people they serve. They're wondering how they'll get out of this mess the government has created for them. Secure care is yet another example, I think, where the government just has forgotten about it. It has not been a priority for them, and because of that chaos, they've completely gapped the issue.

We have another issue, the Lakeview camp — a camp for young offenders that closed last year as a result of this ministry's cuts. What happened to the young people staying at this camp?

Hon. C. Clark: It is important, I think, to differentiate. Lakeview was not a camp. It was a youth custody centre. The number of youth in custody has dropped by over half, so the youth that were in residence at the custody centre — or the camp, as the member wants to refer to it — have moved to custody centres around the province. There's one in Burnaby, one in Prince George and one in Victoria. I think most of the kids that were at Lakeview — most, but not all — moved, ultimately, into the Victoria Youth Custody Centre.

J. Kwan: The community calls it Lakeview camp, and I obviously just followed the reference they use.

Let me ask the minister now the questions around the Community LINK program. The Liberal government has decided to cut $3 million from inner-city school programs in the city of Vancouver, and these cuts will harm those children and families who are most in need. The $3 million cut this year means a loss of critical supports in the ministry.

Let me just put this forward, by way of backgrounder, about the program. Actually, no. Before I do that, let me just ask a basic question. Where is this cut reflected in the budget estimates?

J. Kwan: The line from the ministry so far, of course, is that the ministry's funding will now go to children who are most in need. We've heard that line of argument from a number of other MLAs — the MLA for Vancouver-Burrard, the MLA for Vancouver-Kensington. They claim that the money is needed for other children in other communities, so they're going to take from needy children in Vancouver and give to other children in different communities across British Columbia.

It raises this question, which in my view is basically the principle of robbing Peter to pay Paul. That's what the government has done — taken Vancouver students' needs and diverted them to other communities.

Now, I once heard this minister say that if there's a need, they would actually meet those needs for the children. In the new-era campaign the government and this minister campaigned on prioritizing the most vulnerable people first. How is it that children in Vancouver are less vulnerable than other children? It isn't the case, in my view, that we should pit communities against communities, because that's what the government's done. It isn't about that. It's not about Prince George kids who need it more than Vancouver. The issue is that all of the kids who have been identified, who need this kind of support, should get this kind of support. It's not a lot of money — a drop in the bucket, if you will — if you consider the colossal wastes that the government has wasted.

J. Kwan: I'd be happy to answer that question, with the heckling on my side, but let me put these questions to the minister first.

Hon. C. Clark: I think in the 20-odd responses that I've provided to the House during the estimates debate on this subject alone, I've answered that question.

J. Kwan: Well, no, because I have on record exactly what the minister said about this issue. She claims that everything is fine. "It's all taken care of. Don't worry." That's not reality. I'll tell you that as recently as this morning, I spoke to representatives from Vancouver about the lay of the land and how things are and what it looks like, and things are not fine. Let me be clear about that.

The minister would not answer the question, and it is a critical question, in my view. How is it that the government can decide which needy children should get funding for counselling support, for hot meal programs, for programs to help children stay in school and to help parents be more involved in their children's education — those kinds of things? This minister claims that she prides herself on addressing those kinds of issues in her former portfolio. Here we have a situation where this government is taking $3 million out of an initiative that has proven to help students and parents in communities, and it's decided that some children are more deserving than others by taking moneys away from needy children in Vancouver. No matter how the minister paints the pictures, these cuts will mean fewer services to children who are in need and to families who are in need.

The ministry plans to tailor funding to school districts according to factors, and she'll claim that they have done this evaluation process to decide that those children in Vancouver don't need the money as much as some other children in some other communities. The factors that I know are being evaluated include income levels, the number of families receiving social assistance and other key social needs. This, of course, will undoubtedly mean that some school districts are going to be hit harder than others.

Just for the record, the member for Vancouver-Hastings and myself, the two ridings combined in Vancouver…. I think virtually all of our schools would be impacted by this reduction — virtually all of them.

Let me ask the minister this question: of the new indicators that the government said they used to make their determination to cut funding for Vancouver, what are the 12 socioeconomic indicators that were used in the evaluation?

Hon. C. Clark: It's actually 15: early gestation, low-birth-weight and large-for-gestational-age composite, very low birth weight, small for gestational age, potential years of life lost, without high school, without completed post-secondary, below educational expectations, infant mortality, at-risk children, maternal alcoholism, income assistance and crime.

J. Kwan: All of those are pressing issues and concerns and challenges, certainly for me in my riding of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, and it's certainly the case for the member for Vancouver-Hastings. I would venture to say that in other communities — such as Prince George, for example — those are critical issues as well. I don't want to minimize other communities' challenges, because we all have them.

The point is that it is not about taking money away from one community and then giving it to another. It's not about robbing Peter to pay Paul. It is about supporting all of the children who have these needs.

Demographics and low birth weight, early death rates, infant mortality rates, etc., — poverty really centres around some of these critical issues. In that process, though, instead of putting more moneys into the allocation of Community LINK, the government saw fit to actually take money away from another community. How did the government arrive at that?

Hon. C. Clark: There was a committee that looked at how the money would be better distributed, based on actual need as opposed to the political priorities of the government. That included, of course, this ministry, the Ministry of Education, the B.C. School Trustees Association, the B.C. School Superintendents Association, the B.C. Principals and Vice-Principals Association, the Association for Community Education of B.C., the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils and the B.C. Teachers Federation.

J. Kwan: Many of the associations the minister read out oppose what this government is doing. Parents in the community oppose what this government is doing.

Let us be clear about the Community LINK program. It was not set up for political reasons. The funds weren't there, set up by the previous administration, for political reasons. In fact, the program that was set up is an award-winning program. It's been recognized by other jurisdictions in terms of what a great job it is doing. It's been held up as a model in terms of its delivery of services, and it's been proven to work. That's the most important thing. It's been proven to work.

The mayor of Vancouver actually wrote a letter to the Premier about this issue. The mayor, on behalf of council, raised many concerns about the $3 million cut in the Community LINK program. In the letter Mayor Larry Campbell stated to the Premier….

The Chair: Members, the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the floor.

J. Kwan: You know, it is so degrading — the comments the minister just made about whether or not the mayor of Vancouver, Larry Campbell, is a New Democrat. It is not relevant. It is not relevant to the debate. It's not relevant to anything. He, as a mayor, is doing the best he can to represent the city of Vancouver and the citizens of Vancouver.

The Chair: Members, the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the floor. Can we continue on with the estimates, please.

J. Kwan: You know, I'd be happy to debate other issues not related to this ministry, if that's what the minister wants.

The Chair: Members, we're here to debate the estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development, so could we continue on with that. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the floor.

J. Kwan: Many parents have written to the mayor and council about their concerns about the loss of the Community LINK program dollars — $3 million worth of it. They're worried because the loss of the services would increase pressure on the city, in terms of pressures for services, the off-loading of services and demands onto the city and, of course, potential negative impacts.

In fact, a few weeks ago when we had the spring break, we — myself, my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings and the MP for Vancouver East, Libby Davies — had a forum in Britannia school. We listened to parents about issues around safety concerns, policing and so on. Already they are saying that they're feeling an impact on the streets, and particularly from young people, because of the loss of the funding particularly in the area around counselling.

We had a very important meeting with the community, and they all raised these issues. The mayor is responding; to his credit, he is responding. He wrote a letter to the Premier about this.

Let me put the question to this minister: how much money was previously spent on school-based programs — what is now called Community LINK — within the Vancouver school board district?

Hon. C. Clark: Last year it was $6.805 million; budgeted for '04-05, $5.135 million.

I understand that MLAs and mayors from different communities advocate for as much money as they possibly can for their communities. But we have a responsibility in government to think about kids, not just whether or not money goes to communities. What we've done in restructuring the way we deliver this money to communities is actually look at the needs of the kids.

You know, the previous government, the member says, did it based on need too. That simply cannot be true. Otherwise, we have to assume there were no children in need in Revelstoke or in Nisga'a or in the Conseil Scolaire Francophone. That is just simply not true. There are needy children there too, and those districts are also deserving of funds. It was previously the case that the previous government gave them no money, even though there are needs in those communities.

There were also 24 school districts that actually saw an increase in money as a result of the changes, because we are, rather than focusing parochially on individual communities and school districts — which the member, I know, wants to do — focusing on the needs of kids. We're saying: "Where are the needy kids? Let's deliver the services where those kids are, regardless of which school district they're in." We need to recognize that we need to deliver those services based on the highest need that's out there.

J. Kwan: It is absolutely incorrect for this minister to suggest, even for one moment, that the former program…. First it was actually called the inner-city school program, and then later on it was called school-based

programs. Then it was called the social equity program, and now it's called the Community LINK program.

Let's just review the history a little bit about this program. It was started with pressure from the community under the Social Credit government. No, actually. Sorry, it wasn't started under the Social Credit government. Pressure from the community came about when the Social Credit government was in power. The community said this money needs to be set up and schools need to be recognized in terms of the demographics, in terms of the poverty level, in terms of the lay of the land, if you will, in our communities to provide this kind of support to children and families across British Columbia.

It was most highlighted, first of all, from the inner-city area of Vancouver. The community took to the streets. They rallied, they pressured the government, and they lobbied — to no avail under the Social Credit government. Mike Harcourt was the mayor of Vancouver then, in those early days. He then met with parents as well, and then he actually dealt with some of these people.

J. Kwan: It's not an issue about which political affiliation he is with, Mr. Chair. The issue is that he took up the cause as the mayor, and he later on became the Premier of this province and began that program. He beat the Social Credit government and then became the Premier of this province and began the inner-city school program.

Then, through the very many iterations as the communities changed over the last ten years, different demographics started to show up. And I might say that the heartlands, particularly, are hurting even more now under this administration as they gut even more of the services and cause economic disability in those communities because of this government's failed economic policies. Those communities are hurting. Make no mistake about it.

I don't begrudge the children and families in those communities who need these moneys, as well, to support them. What I do take issue with is for this government to take money away from needy children in Vancouver to give to other children in other communities. All things being equal and all children being valuable in our communities, they should all be supported — not at the expense of one or another and to be laughed at by this government when they make these decisions. That, in my view, is political motivation at its worst, Mr. Chair.

It is not a secret that this minister and this government dislike — to say it mildly, I think — the Vancouver school board. But that's not the issue. It's not about who is the chair of the Vancouver school board or who makes up the Vancouver school board in terms of its political affiliation. That's not the real issue. The real issue is about the children in Vancouver-Burrard who need the support, who are being cut from the services, and this member for Vancouver-Burrard is actually supporting these cuts for his own constituents in his own community. Let me just put this on the record.

J. Kwan: It's interesting. You know, Mr. Chair, the member for Vancouver-Burrard is heckling me, saying that he met with my constituents on Sunday. You know where I was on Sunday? I was in the West End Community Centre at a meeting hosted by the West End Residents Association chastising this government and this member for Vancouver-Burrard for his lack of action and representation for the people of Vancouver-Burrard in the area of rental increases.

The Chair: Member, that is absolutely not appropriate to be discussing the actions of another member of this House. You know better than that, so proceed. Let's get back to the debate.

J. Kwan: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. The member for Vancouver-Burrard was trying to elicit the response from me, and I simply obliged. It was wrong, Mr. Chair, and I accept that.

So here we have children in the riding of Vancouver-Burrard — and in fact, in many of the Vancouver ridings — who will lose support because of the funding cut from this government. Here's the letter that the trustee had written to the Premier in response to the Premier's statements about the cuts in the Community LINK program.

Oh, actually, let me just put this on record first, Mr. Chair, before I go there, because it is interesting in terms of these concerns. It's not just partisanship in terms of myself or the member for Vancouver-Hastings, who is raising the issues around these cuts and how they hurt children. In fact, a member from the Liberal caucus actually raised the issues and highlighted the issues in terms of his concerns as well. Let me just put his concerns on the record here. Let me just identify explicitly what his riding is; I wouldn't want to get it wrong. The member for West Vancouver–Capilano — it's his riding. He wrote this letter to the minister. It states:

Then, the attachment of the Vancouver Sun article. This is from a government-bench MLA, who is saying that with these cuts, schools — to his credit he remembers his roots — that happen to be in my riding will be negatively impacted.

Well, I'd like the minister's response to the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, the assurance that inner-city schools such as Nightingale and Mount Pleasant would not be unduly impacted as a result of a $3 million cut from the Ministry of Children and Family Development to the Vancouver school board for the Community LINK program.

Hon. C. Clark: I answered this exact question, and it may even be the exact same letter when it was read into the record by the member from Vancouver-Lonsdale on behalf of the member for West Vancouver–Capilano. Under the rules of the House, I'm of course not allowed to comment on whether or not this member was present for any of that discussion, but I assure her if she refers back to the Hansard debate, that issue was raised and canvassed fully.

J. Kwan: Yes. Thank you very much. I remember the minister's answer, and in fact she gave the same pat answer to the member for Vancouver-Kensington who raised the issue as well. The member for Vancouver-Kensington certainly was happy with the answer, although I don't know why.

The minister mentioned that there was a proposal being forwarded by the Vancouver school board district finance committee to the Vancouver school board. Here's what the minister said:

Let me just stop there, because — you know what? — I know the proposal that was put forward from the staff, and it doesn't address all of the issues around this funding shortfall. The proposal may potentially have an ability to offset some of the costs, and I'll get into the details of those proposals in a moment.

But you know what? The issues raised by the member for West Vancouver–Capilano actually talked not just about meals programs. He talked about a variety of other things like after-school, Saturday sports, other activities intended so that the children — students, if you will — don't get into trouble, so that they stay in school. He talks about visits to Science World, science explorations, basketball, micro-basketball, micro-soccer, imagination art and bringing the artists to the communities, camping, and so on and so forth. It isn't just funding meals. The proposal put forward does not offset all of the costs and, therefore, the program cuts — because of the loss in funding — at all.

The minister's answer doesn't even adequately answer the question from her own government-bench side. It's dismaying, though, that the member for Vancouver-Kensington is happy with that answer and just accepted it and went away. I don't accept it, Mr. Chair. I don't accept that answer. It is not adequate. It does not address the issues that we're all faced with or that the communities are faced with.

The mayor from Vancouver has not accepted that answer, and that of course is keeping in mind the issue that the Vancouver school board is also facing a budget shortfall of somewhere between $9 million and $11 million. That is in addition to the funding shortfall in the school Community LINK program.

Let me just put these issues to the minister. The Vancouver school board published a fact sheet with a breakdown of the cuts for the Vancouver school board. Here is the list of highlights.

School meals would be reduced or eliminated in 29 schools, 24 programs and 10,800 meals a day. Ten community schools are at risk of closing. The KidSafe program would be eliminated. Staff at the elementary,

special remedial, social development, behavioral and support programs face staff reduction or layoff. Staff at secondary, alternative, remedial bridge behaviour and transition programs face staff reductions or layoff. Thirty-three positions funded by the Ministry of Children and Family Development for alternative programs face staff reduction or layoffs. The Healthy Schools program is being impacted, and 60 teacher and support staff positions funded by the Ministry of Children and Family Development for inner-city schools support face staff reduction and layoff.

Let me ask the minister this question. Which of these services does the minister deem are not important for the children in Vancouver?

Hon. C. Clark: Those are decisions that the school board in Vancouver makes, and I guess that question would be better put to them. They have had increased funding. They have had continual increased funding, particularly on a per-pupil basis, as has every school district in British Columbia. We've added $100 million to the education budget. I know we're not here to debate those, so I won't raise that again. The school district is the one that makes the decisions about where their priorities lie, and the Vancouver school district has clearly made its decision.

It is their decision to make. They need to take responsibility for the decisions they make. They will be held accountable for those decisions.

J. Kwan: It is not true for the minister to claim that the school board actually has enough money to provide for these services and that, in fact, they are cutting these programs because they want to cut these programs. It's simply not true. Yes, the government may have given more money to the Vancouver school board and to school boards generally in the area of education, but at the same time the government has also imposed increased pressures for school districts — pressures that have gone up in the area of MSP premium increases, in the area of fuel in terms of the gas tax increase for heating and keeping schools warm, as an example — and has increased costs in even basic things around general impacts for schools. PST taxes have even gone up, which can in some cases have a negative impact for school districts. The teachers' salaries and support staff…. Legislation that was imposed by this government increased costs.

Do you know what? At the end of the day, the minister, who claimed just now that school boards can actually offset these costs, that they chose to cut Community LINK programs…. The provincial government has given them enough money, but they chose to cut Community LINK programs because of this additional $3 million cut. It's all of the school board's decision, and therefore "Don't blame me" doesn't work. It doesn't work, and that argument doesn't work, and the facts refute the minister's statements just now.

That's why the school board is faced with a $9 million to $11 million shortfall in addition to the Community LINK shortfall. Then they are faced with these cuts that I've just put on the record. Every one of those programs is important to the children in Vancouver — for their success, for the future, to assist them to stay in school and to maximize their success.

Mr. Chair, maybe the minister will tell me which one of these groups is wrong in opposing the cuts to Community LINK. They are not just the Vancouver school board, not just the mayor of Vancouver and city councillors, as I've just identified. The Canadian Council for Inner-City Education, the parent advisory councils from Strathcona Elementary School, Hastings Community Elementary School, Vancouver Elementary School Teachers Association, the Vancouver Inner City Education Society, the Vancouver Inner City Parents Group, the Vancouver Secondary Teachers Association, hundreds of students and hundreds of parents oppose this cut. The Member of Parliament for Vancouver East opposed this. In fact, on February 15, 2004, over a thousand people attended a forum called No Cuts to Kids. It was a rally at the John Oliver auditorium protesting these cuts. These people that oppose the government's move in cutting $3 million out of the Community LINK program — which one of these people would the minister say is wrong?

Well, no answer from the minister. Well, then that is to say that none of them are wrong, Mr. Chair. None of them are wrong.

That is, of course, in addition to this stack of mail that I have received from community members opposing this move. They are individuals, individual parents, who have written these letters. Some of them are teachers and principals from a variety of schools. I think I've received correspondence from every one of my schools in Vancouver that is being impacted. All the principals have written to me. I have received, I think, a letter from every one of the PACs in my schools that opposes this.

Petitions have been sent. This stack that was sent around January 2004 contains 60 names. This one contains 89 names. This one contains 64 names. This one contains 25 names. This one contains 79 names. When you add them up — and these are just some of them that I remembered to bring up to the chamber here — they all oppose the government's approach to cutting $3 million out of the Community LINK program.

The government says it's the school board who's doing it — not me. The school boards don't want to do it, and they've been lobbying this government to increase that money to no avail to date.

We also know that the minister never met with the Vancouver school board around these concerns. No meetings have been held with them. Now, part of the impact, in addition to school…. And, I should also add, the member for West Vancouver–Capilano opposed these cuts as well. He wanted to get assurance from this minister that the children in the schools that he

attended, Mount Pleasant and Florence Nightingale, would not be impacted with these cuts. No assurance was given from this minister to this Liberal member.

Aside from the meals issue, we also have other areas in terms of impacts for the schools in Vancouver in the area of Community LINK. Closures to the family advancement program. As of March 31 the family advancement program is being cancelled. It is a highly effective and successful front-line program that provides services for schools with high percentages of immigrant and ESL children. The program provides culturally sensitive information and referral services, counselling, parenting advice, preventative work and therapeutic services for children and families who may face difficulties in accessing assistance.

At least nine schools will be affected by this program cut: Mount Pleasant, Nightingale, Strathcona, Queen Alexandra, Hastings, Thunderbird, Brooke Elementary, Moberly and Trudeau. These include not just the riding of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, not just the riding of Vancouver-Hastings but also the ridings of Vancouver-Kensington, of Vancouver-Fraserview and of Vancouver-Langara. In the absence of this program, where can immigrant and ESL students and families turn for this type of assistance?

Hon. C. Clark: Those will be questions that I'm sure the member will direct to the Minister of Education during his estimates.

J. Kwan: No, hon. Chair. The cuts and the funding impacts for this program are a result of the cuts from the Community LINK program, not the Ministry of Education — this ministry, her direct responsibility. You can't pass the buck even amongst your own. You can't just pass the buck and say: "Oh well, don't blame me. I didn't do it. Blame the Minister of Education." No, that ain't gonna wash.

These programs are being lost. These workers, these family advancement workers, the family advancement program…. It's being lost in the schools of Vancouver as a direct result of the cuts in the Community LINK program. It ain't that easy just to say, "Don't blame me," even though it is the habit of this minister to do that all the time.

In addition to the loss of these programs that impact immigrant and ESL children and families, the minister has no answer — no answer in terms of where the children and families could access these services. Why? Maybe she doesn't care. Maybe it's not a priority for her, once again, so it's like the Secure Care Act. Maybe the ministry is in such chaos that she has gapped the issue, or maybe the minister is just so out of touch that she just simply does not know what is going on with her own ministry at all. In either case, it doesn't matter if it's A, B, C or D. It doesn't matter. All of the rationales and the excuses that the minister tries to hide under are unacceptable.

In addition to that, some of the cuts to these programs and positions are slated for midway through the school semester, which of course will impact midway through a school year on these students and for these parents, adding additional trauma to the loss and heightening that additional trauma because of the loss of the program. Why weren't these cuts made effective after the school year?

The minister refuses to answer once again. Isn't that interesting? No answer at all on problems and concerns faced by parents and children in the community as a result of her direct action. Midway through, decisions are made to take away money, impacting kids. There 's no advice as to where people can turn to get the services that they'd been getting.

Let me ask the minister this question to see if she knows anything at all. What is going to happen to the human early learning partnership known as the HELP program? This program is partially funded by the Ministry of Children and Family Development. What's going to happen there?

Hon. C. Clark: Just to be clear, because the member likes to go on and on about how I don't answer questions, the fact is that I've answered at least 25 questions on that specific program in the House. So she can say it, but it doesn't make it true. I suppose that's the way this debate works.

J. Kwan: Okay, good. Well, there's one part of it that is carrying on, although I think the funding comes out of the early childhood development initiative, on which I'll have further questions. It's good that that program is carrying on.

The minister likes to say that she's answered all the questions that I put to her. No, she hasn't, Mr. Chair.

Then on the school-based programs, the positive effects of the school-based programs — the Community LINK program — for children are well known. Even research from the ministry's own website, research conducted in conjunction with the Ministry of Human Resources and the Ministry of Education, shows the positive effects of the MCFD funding on students. Schools which have received MCFD funding have these results: higher enrolment of children from families receiving income assistance, higher rates of student accomplishment from families receiving income assistance, higher foundation skills assessment results, improved grade 9 to 10 transition rates. They also provide for better results with respect to helping kids — at-risk students — stay in school.

Now, keep in mind in the context of this cut and the loss of these programs that there are reductions in income assistance levels, which will of course place additional pressures on and demands for school-based programs. As mentioned, the Vancouver school board has been recognized as a leader at both the provincial and the federal level for expanding and developing programs for inner-city children and families. The Vancouver school board has been awarded an award

of excellence for its program. It's been recognized by the University of Ottawa and the University of Alberta in external studies. The Vancouver school board's inner-city staff have been acknowledged for their experience and expertise by actively participating in and hosting workshops and conferences in the area of inner-city school program development.

In spite of that, the government has decided to cut $3 million out of the inner-city school program. Why? When we have a proven track record of these programs, when they've been recognized by other jurisdictions for their effectiveness and when these programs are being used as examples to be duplicated in other jurisdictions, why would the ministry take money away from a highly effective program?

Hon. C. Clark: As I've described a number of times, we have in this ministry made a tremendous effort to base our decisions on research, on science, on best practices. Some of the work that Clyde Hertzman is doing is doing a great deal to inform not just British Columbia but the world about how we can spend money better, more effectively, to support children in their early years and later on in their lives as well — very important research that we're doing. That's why we are supporting the human early learning partnership. That's been a big part of informing the decisions that we make.

In terms of the Community LINK program, I appreciate the fact that the member represents a specific riding and that it's very, very tempting for any member of the Legislature to think parochially and to suggest: "Well, I want to get more money for my community, and I don't care what impact that has on other communities." The fact is that we have based the decision on how to redistribute this money on the research that's out there, which tells us there are children in some communities, in fact, who are more needy or just as needy who weren't receiving a penny through this program. What we've done is instead of looking at how much money we give to local ridings, how much money we provide based on where we have members elected, we're saying that we are providing money based on where kids are most needy. The decision about that is based on the 15 scientifically based factors that I described to the member.

The member should also know that the way we are distributing this money has drawn a fair amount of national interest and attention, because we are really leading the way in making these decisions about how to provide this money based on science, based on facts, based on research, based on best practices — which is a huge, huge departure from the very, very highly political way that the NDP government for a decade managed many, many of their programs in government, including this one.

J. Kwan: You know, nothing could be further from the truth, when the minister continues to accuse and to justify the cuts from needy children in Vancouver because she claims it is for political reasons that those children got the moneys. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, a few weeks ago I attended a conference that was held by concerned parents from the community about the state of affairs around these kinds of programs. Clyde Hertzman was there as well. You know what he talked about? He talked about the importance of these programs and how they need to be maintained from year to year to year so that when there is a change in administration, you don't all of a sudden go back to square one and have to fight to maintain the funding or to keep the funding in these important program areas. The whole conference was about that, in fact. He actually presented information….

J. Kwan: You know, the member for Vancouver-Burrard says it's based on fairness and that perhaps Clyde Hertzman supports the principle of fairness and that children in Prince George also need the support. You know what? I absolutely agree with that — about children needing the support, recognizing it and providing the support to those communities and to those students. But it is not — as this member for Vancouver-Burrard would like to think and as this government would like to think — that it is justifiable to take from needy children in Vancouver to give to other needy children in different communities. It isn't about that. What part of that don't the members get? It is about equity. It is about supporting children, and it is not about pitting one community against the other. It's not to say that Prince George students and children need less than Vancouver. It is about all the children who have these needs, and that they should be provided. That's what it is about. In case anybody thinks that it's hundreds of millions of dollars, it isn't. It is $3 million that we're talking about. Then when you consider….

J. Kwan: No, Mr. Chair. Maybe the member for Vancouver-Burrard would actually do his homework and learn the facts. It's about a $3 million cut from Vancouver. Those $3 million have been taken away from Vancouver and redistributed in other communities elsewhere. I'm not disputing the need for other communities elsewhere. I'm disputing the action of this government — taking moneys from Vancouver children and giving it to other communities. It is about all the children who should be funded, who need these programs and the government's failure to recognize that, to even see the rationale behind that. It just goes to show you how out of touch the member for Vancouver-Burrard and this minister are when they don't even get that basic, fundamental point.

It isn't just my schools in my riding who need the moneys for the students. No, it isn't. It is not about parochial, partisanship politics here. It's about recognizing needs and providing for them, because other schools that, albeit…. Unfortunately, the member for Vancouver-Burrard would not advocate for kids in his riding. Schools in Vancouver-Burrard are losing supports from this funding as well. The area for Vancouver-Kensington — same thing.

J. Kwan: You know, at this forum there were parents from all over the place — certainly, parents from my community and from the member for Vancouver-Burrard's area and the principals from the Vancouver-Burrard area as well. You know what? They all showed up at this forum saying that funding needs to be restored by the Liberal government. No advocacy from the Liberal MLAs. Nonetheless, they all say funding should be restored, and they're in unison in their call for the government to restore this funding.

The mayor, as I mentioned, wrote to the Premier about this, raising his concerns. Interestingly, the Premier responded. Here's what the Premier had to say:

This is what the Premier wrote back to the mayor of Vancouver. This is the message box that we've just heard from the minister and the noise that the member for Vancouver-Burrard is making.

Here are the facts from a person who was a school principal in the inner-city school community for a long, long time, who actually knew the very beginnings of the inner-city school program and how it started and who was actually active in lobbying for that program. Here are the facts as he's put them forward to correct the record and the misinformation espoused by Liberal government MLAs, the Premier and the minister.

It's a letter from the school trustee Noel Herron. He is now a school trustee in the city of Vancouver.

J. Kwan: I would actually like the minister to respond to this letter from Noel Herron. Somehow, the member for Vancouver-Burrard immediately has decided that Noel Herron's perspective is not credible. He is the person who was a principal for a long time in the city of Vancouver, in the inner-city school area, and had been very strong in his advocacy for children.

Hon. C. Clark: I've responded to all the issues that the member has raised quite a number of times. She can certainly go back and refer to the comments that I've made earlier, in Hansard. We've covered this quite extensively. As I said, we've probably dealt with it at least 25 — and we may be nearing 30 — times now in the estimates. She can, I'm sure, refer to those comments, and that will provide her a basis for a response to her constituents.

J. Kwan: No, the minister did not answer my question. She did not respond to the response from trustee Noel Herron, who highlighted the misinformation and

the historical inaccuracies and current inaccuracies that the minister has put forward in estimates debate, as well as what the Premier has put forward in his letter to Mayor Larry Campbell.

She has not addressed any of the points put forward by trustee Noel Herron — not only a school trustee but a former principal, for many years, of the inner-city schools in Vancouver and who also was one of the individuals who started the inner-city school programs in the early days.

The minister claims that the school board would be able to deal with the shortfall. Let me put some information about this.

The school board would, no doubt, have to try to take moneys away from valuable programs in their system. They're grappling with it; make no mistake about that. They did have a public meeting some months ago in the community. In fact, they had it in my riding at Mount Pleasant School, which I attended. Parents stood at the mike and community members stood at the mike to tell the school board that they mustn't cut programs in the Community LINK area. Yet with the budget shortfall, what are they to do? They face another $9 million to $11 million worth of shortfall elsewhere because of increased pressures in education, because of the lack of funding from the Education ministry. I would say they are being placed in an impossible position. They don't have the moneys to fund the programs, and if they want to fund the programs, they have to take moneys away from other valuable programs.

I know the staff are working hard at the school board to try and see how they can deal with this. I know that Tom Grant, who is the superintendent, works very hard for the school system. I spoke with him at length about these issues. They're trying to come up with a plan. Yes, there is a proposal in terms of covering off some of the shortfalls for the meals program only, by taking away one-time capital dollars from school equipment — kitchen equipment, no less — by potentially charging parents, making parents obligated to pay for meal programs, particularly in areas outside of the inner-city school area.

It's $30 a month right now. The system is such that parents can contribute towards the hot lunch program for elementary schools to the tune of $30 a month. It's up to parents. If they can afford it, they can contribute. For elementary schools, it's $60 a month if they can contribute it, but they're not made to. So no children in the school system, if their parents are not able to pay for the meal, would be stigmatized in any way, because all children would get access to the meal programs.

That's really the pride of the program, in and of itself, when it was first started. It was done in such a way as to not stigmatize the children, to keep in mind the best interests of the children — that's why it was done in that way — but at the same time offer the opportunity for parents who could afford to pay to pay into these programs. Now, if they do proceed with this proposal, they are going to take away their equipment funding, one-time equipment funding that would only last them for one year, and that, of course, would strip the capital funds.

Then, of course, if they proceed with making the payment of the hot lunch programs mandatory, particularly for schools outside of the inner-city school area, it may well have a negative impact. In fact, it will have the negative impact of stigmatizing children.

I want to just stop for a moment here. It isn't just the inner-city schools that have these hot lunch programs. In fact, I know of schools in other communities. In a school in the Kitsilano area, outside of my riding, there are a lot of children who rely on the hot lunch program as well. Why? The demographics of that community also show that there are a lot of renters there, and many of them are on low or fixed income. Their children are correspondingly impacted even though their children go to a west-side school. It isn't about east- or west-side schools, inner-city schools or otherwise; it's about all the children who need this program.

Let's be clear. Parents already pay $1.2 million towards the food costs on school meals. Right now there are meal programs in 26 elementary schools in Vancouver, and these programs feed 7,543 elementary students, and 5,506 students — or 73 percent of these parents — pay for the school meals. Now, with this situation where parents might be forced to pay, the pitfalls are huge. If parents cannot pay, then the students do not get the meal. They do not get the meal in the school system.

In terms of secondary schools, I should say and clarify that the current number of students participating in the program is 607. In the alternative programs, the number of students participating is 623. Twenty-six elementary schools, three secondary and 23 alternative programs participate. The contribution that's requested of parents is based on the cost of the food only, and it doesn't cover other costs such as labour and supplies. There are many regulations one must abide by to ensure that the food is safe and so on.

The intent, of course, is for the parents to help out with the food costs, but on average the cost of this program is $1.60 a day. That's all we're talking about — $1.60 for the value which we get, and this government cannot see their way to funding this program for a mere $3 million.

The Premier's portal disaster would have funded this program 30 times over — 20 times over, minimum. The advertising program — $19 million for health alone — would have paid for this program many times over — six or seven times over in the minimum. There you have it.

We have cuts in this area. Even the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils has written about urging the government to reinstitute the costs of this program, asking them to urge the government to reinstitute this $3 million.

Finally, I would like the minister's response to this on this issue. This was a speech written by a youth and family worker from a particular school, dated February 15, 2004. It is actually an excerpt of statements from students who rely on the program and also from students that she's dealt with. No names are attached, just statements. Here they are, and I would like the minister's response.

Actually, I don't think I can read all the statements from here, Mr. Chair, and I apologize. It's not my intent to not be able to do this. I was asked, actually, to read these statements, because the counsellors in the school provide these programs to these children, and with the loss of funding, the children who get these programs will not get the programs. I would like the minister's response to that.

Hon. C. Clark: We are very concerned that kids who need help get it. We're working to make sure that children are a priority for our ministry.

J. Kwan: A final question to the minister. If she really is concerned, she should rise in this House…

J. Kwan: …and commit to the parents and the counsellors who are working in the community that she will reinstate $3 million for the Community LINK program now.

J. Kwan: Maybe the minister makes light of all of this, and maybe she thinks this is all just a game.

J. Kwan: Maybe this is just a movie for her or some sort of show, as she's heckling me saying that the next stop should be Hollywood.

J. Kwan: No, this is not a performance. It's not any of that. These letters are heartfelt statements taken directly from children who have been impacted, whose lives are impacted every day, and they will lose the support that they need. That's the point I want to make. That's the point that this individual who wrote, who took the time and the care to put together this statement, said is what's needed. Maybe the minister will just pause for one moment from the politics that she thrives on and consider the needs of the children.

Mr. Chair, I will simply table this document at the appropriate time. It was my intention to read all of it onto the record, and as I have not been able to do so, I do apologize to the people who have asked me to put this on the record, but I would like it to be on record for Hansard. If I may, Mr. Chair, I will table this to you so that it could be on the record for everyone to see. Let me just wrap up with a statement….

J. Kwan: It's embarrassing, this minister. It is embarrassing, where she is at. Anyway, I'll leave that for the time being, because it isn't about the minister. It's about the children, and let's keep that in mind.

Let me just close off with these statements: I think I've established in the estimates debate ample evidence about the value of the Community LINK program, ample evidence about the supports that it does provide to our community and through many, many years. I also want to say that in adding other schools and other students to the program, it's the right thing to do, absolutely, and I support that 100 percent.

I would say that what the government should have done — they would have earned praise from the opposition, from parents, from teachers, from counsellors, from everyone across the board for doing the right thing, and that is all I ask the government to do — is to do the right thing.

The minister, yesterday, talked about morality and all of those things. Well, then search in her heart and her soul, and do take the time to read what's going to be put in Hansard and about all of the statements I have not been able to put on record. Take the time to read that and reflect for one moment what it means for the children in our community. It's $3 million within a budget that this government can squander through advertising, through programs that have failed and the like. Surely the government can find $3 million for needy children and for all the children in British Columbia.

I'd now like to turn to another area, and that would be the final area in the estimates debate — the early childhood development area.

J. Kwan: The minister continues to heckle me about performances, about Hollywood and about movies. You know what, Mr. Chair? I've tried very hard to swallow and stomach what this minister is saying and what she has said over the course of the estimates debate.

The needs of the children are not about the politics that the minister continuously likes to play and wallow in herself. Rise above it. Rise above it, and find it in your heart to listen to the messages of the children who need the services. Get her job done, do the right thing, and fund the children and the school boards for these needy programs. I would ask the minister to compose herself, turn her mind to the task at hand — that would be her responsibility as the Minister of Children and Family Development — and rise above the politics that she continuously wallows in.

In the area of early childhood development, it lists it in the core business areas in the ministry's service plan as just one of a long list of child and family development programs. Let me ask the minister this first question. The early childhood development programs — are they the responsibility of this ministry, or is it part of the responsibility of the minister of state?

Hon. C. Clark: The answer is both, and we can have that discussion about the budget estimates here. As the member knows, that minister of state is on maternity leave.

J. Kwan: The federal government has provided early childhood development dollars through two agreements, one signed in the year 2000 with the previous administration and one signed in 2003 by this government. The minister says she'll be dealing with these questions in this area. Let me put this question to her first: can the minister tell what provincial dollars have been put into early childhood development?

Hon. C. Clark: For '01-02 it is $82.050 million. Sorry, that's the baseline. For '01-02 it's $27.228 million, and for '02-03 it is $58.653 million. As the member knows, the reporting-out period for '03-04 is going to be in the fall of this year.

J. Kwan: Under the early childhood development agreement signed in 2001, British Columbia received $90 million from the federal government over two years. The Liberal government, when it took office, not only cancelled the previous administration's before- and after-school program; the government then, in 2002-03, spent $18 million less on the child care area than in the baseline year of 2000-01. In addition, this government's spending on the child care subsidy program, which serves low-income families, was down $23.6 million in 2002-03.

What we found in the estimates for Women's Services — what used to be called Women's Equality — is that instead of using the federal moneys for child care, this government used it to save itself money in other areas, such as health — using it for immunization, pregnancy counselling, midwifery and all manner of other non-child-care-related programs, programs that are very important but should be funded out of health dollars and not by robbing the early childhood development funds and child care funds. As a result of the way B.C. — and of course its ideological cousins, Mike Harris's Ontario and Ralph Klein's Alberta — misused federal child care dollars, the federal government actually clamped down on the agreement. When the 2003 agreement on early childhood development was signed, the federal minister specifically tied the dollars to child care to prevent the abuse of these certain provinces in utilizing those federal dollars.

The 2003 multilateral agreement on child care and early learning with the federal government was worth $935 million over five years. In 2003-04 the federal government transferred $25 million to the provinces. In 2004-05 the figure is $75 million. Could the minister indicate how her ministry is investing these funds?

Hon. C. Clark: It's a five-year agreement, $288 million over the five years. We intend to spend every penny of it.

ECD is a priority for government. We are the first to have a minister of state for ECD. We have made significant progress in early childhood development. This ministry is the ministry responsible and has been the lead for the national children's agenda. We have demonstrated, I think, real leadership by introducing some new programs and services and improving access to other programs.

We've invested in a unique partnership with communities to conduct ECD-related research and establish readiness-to-learn kindergarten children and complete community asset mapping in a significant number of communities throughout the province. That's $2.5 million every year. Federal funding will continue to be used to make strategic investments in ECD that build on existing community capacity and enhance the resiliency and well-being of children and families. We've identified investments and implemented those based on best practice and research. Some one-time-only investments have been made for capacity-building with key partners, such as United Way of the Lower Mainland and Credit Union Central, with the Success by 6 partnership. That's $10 million.

With respect to the Ministry of Health Services, preventative and community-based health services are a key component of ECD. That's consistent with other provinces across the country. B.C.'s public reporting on priority investments in health services is consistent with other provinces as well. We're making some excellent investments here.

We've made a real commitment as a government to early childhood development. We are leading the country in this respect in many of the best practices that we're relying on. I expect that with the support of the federal government, we will continue to lead in this area.

J. Kwan: How much out of all the funding areas that the minister has named…? How much of the funds from the federal government actually went into direct early learning for children, direct care for children or for child care?

Hon. C. Clark: I'm advised that in this ministry, we are looking at very significant investments. We're trying to narrow down the exact number that the member is looking for. If she wants to ask the next question, we'll continue to make sure that we get this information for her. Perhaps I can provide it for her in conjunction with the answer to the next question she's going to ask.

J. Kwan: Well, the flip side, of course, is: how much did not go into direct, regulated early learning and child care? That would be the flip side of the question.

Hon. C. Clark: We haven't received a penny that we didn't spend on early childhood development, and the answer to the member's question is $10 million for new investments.

Hon. C. Clark: We don't have the information organized in the way the member is seeking it at our fingertips here, so we'll endeavour to get that for her for last year. But we do have, as I said, the information for this year, which I've provided.

J. Kwan: Perhaps I could get a list from the minister in terms of the breakdown of the programs and the amounts that were funded this year and last year out of the federal dollars that the minister deems to be direct dollars in the areas of child care and early learning, and then the dollars that were not spent in those direct areas and what they were, what programs they were, and how much — if I could get the breakout for this year and last year from the minister. I trust that I can, so I'll move on to ask the minister another question.

The federal minister responsible designated these funds for "direct care and early learning for children in settings such as child care centres, family child care homes, preschools and nursery schools." In terms of trying to find out where the dollars went, it is important. I would also say, for the benefit of this new minister, that there is real concern over the lack of accountability on how the Liberal government is spending federal child care dollars.

Just yesterday the Child Care Advocacy Forum released a report on what it calls "the B.C. government's misuse of the federal funds it received under the federal-provincial-territorial early childhood development agreement." In fact, I have a press release that was sent out by this group, the Child Care Advocacy Forum, and here's what it says. It was sent out in March 2004, so it is very current. Just for the minister's information, here's what it reads:

On the basis of that, does the minister acknowledge the Child Care Advocacy Forum's assessment that her government is using federal early childhood development funding to replace provincial spending on child care?

Hon. C. Clark: We have increased the amount of money that we spend on early childhood development. We've given, really, an increased focus, which has been nationally recognized, on early childhood development. We've been, I think, very, very innovative. We are in the first three years of a five-year agreement with the federal government, and we intend to spend that money over the course of the agreement.

Among the accomplishments of early childhood development are Children First learning initiatives that focus on integrated services at the community level, support partnerships that build community capacity by bringing together key stakeholders such as public health, education, child care and family service agencies. That's to promote community-driven learning and planning focusing on early childhood development. It coordinates integrated services and supports that can lead to reinvestment of funds that help address service needs. There are learning initiatives established in 17 communities, reaching every region, and each one is working with the human early learning initiative to complete community mapping, which will further guide their work.

Of course, we are also funding, with the four B.C. universities, research into early childhood development that will provide us the map that we need to know, which will tell us where we need to make new investments. We entered into a three-year contribution agreement with UBC at a cost of about $2.5 million annually. It administers the early development instrument to kindergarten students across B.C. That measures their readiness to learn. There's family resource programs across the province — Building Blocks programs like Roots of Empathy and Mother Goose.

The B.C. Council for Families recognizes that we have been a key partner in Building Blocks. There's the Success by 6 partnership, which I've talked about extensively. Those are all examples of the work we've done in early childhood development. It's been a new focus. It's been a very, very innovative and research-driven approach. We are leading the country in this. We are proud of what we've done.

Our Premier has established the first Minister of State for Early Childhood Development. As a result, I think we have done quite a bit of very, very good work in partnership with communities to make sure that we enhance early learning opportunities for our youngest of citizens.

J. Kwan: Once again, the minister actually didn't answer the question. The question to the minister was very simple — for the minister to acknowledge the Child Care Advocacy Forum's assessment that her government is using federal early childhood development funding to replace provincial spending on child care. That is a fact. Those facts cannot be disputed, and that's exactly what this Liberal government has done. The minister can't even find it within herself to acknowledge that fact.

The minister and this government have, of course — in spite of receiving $50 million from the federal government for early childhood development — cut substantively in the area of child care subsidies for low- or moderate-income families, to the tune of $23 million. They used $27.6 million taken out of the child care and other early childhood development programs to increase spending on research, community forums and grants. The minister has just put on the record some of that spending.

Almost half of every dollar put towards other early childhood development priority programs is out of cuts to child care. That's what the government has done, and these, again, are the facts before us. As a result of this government's policies, $50 million has been cut out of direct child care. Why was supported child care chosen for funding to the exclusion and detriment of direct child care funding?

Hon. C. Clark: I understand the member has canvassed child care issues extensively in the appropriate estimates. That's the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. I understand she may continue to intend to do that, because the estimates haven't completed yet. I'd encourage her to raise those questions in that venue. That venue is still open and available to her to discuss those issues.

The budget estimates that are before us are for the Ministry of Children and Family Development. I've told her, I think, a number of times in the estimates debate already that the supported child care funding has been protected in this ministry. We're continuing to fund that. The needs of special children are an incredibly important ingredient of what we do, so we continue to support that and continue to protect that budget.

J. Kwan: Except the early childhood development agreement actually falls under the responsibility of this minister. In fact, the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services stated that very clearly. He signed the second agreement, what we call the multi-

Again, I know the minister tries to pass the buck on Community LINK issues and says: "Go talk to the Minister of Education." On the early childhood development funding that is under this ministry, she's trying to pass the buck and says: "Go and talk to my colleague the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services."

Hey, you know what? It ain't going to wash, because the ministry and the minister should know what her responsibilities are. The opposition certainly has some of that information. So does the public, and they're trying to hold this government to account.

This is what the government has done, actually. They have chosen to spend almost $50 million…. No, I should say that they have taken — cut — about $50 million out of direct child care. They're funding supported child care to the exclusion and the detriment of direct child care funding. Surely the minister could, as a base of fact, just acknowledge that fact for members of the public.

J. Kwan: Yeah. The answer is: "Pass the buck. Don't ask me." I see that the pattern continues, even as we near the end of the estimates debate with this minister. She's holding that line: "Don't talk to me. Pass the buck. Someone else's fault."

I understand that this government has been receiving letters from parents who are concerned about the use of federal child care dollars and who would like this government to reverse its decision to spend $50 million less on regulated child care. Will this minister at least be open with parents and the child care community and provide an admission — just a basic admission from this minister — that they have taken moneys away from the directed child care areas?

Hon. C. Clark: The child care budget does not fall under this ministry's budget, which we're debating. Supported child care does, and I think I've given the member some information about that. Supported child care has gone from $31.9 million to $37.7 million.

Child care is an incredibly important part of what we do and the services we provide as a society and as a government. Child care centres provide valuable early childhood development for children from across the province. They are mixed settings where children will learn to socialize and work with professionals who are trained in the areas of early childhood development. Certainly in my experience, children that I know who have been in a child care setting have almost without exception benefited a great deal from their attendance at a child care centre. Child care providers in British Columbia do a tremendous job of supporting families, of providing support for children. I think we can all be extremely proud of the services that we provide as a government and that service providers make sure is out there.

We have a very, very high level of quality in British Columbia. Parents can depend on a very, very strong network. I think that's an incredibly important part of making sure that our society is one that is a healthy, high-functioning, democratic, civil place to live for years to come.

J. Kwan: If the minister values child care as much as she's claiming, then you would think that the government would actually follow through with resources in that area. The reality is that the government has not. They have actually cut moneys in the area of child care.

As I've mentioned, they've cut $23 million in the area of child care subsidies. They have cut $27.6 million in terms of child care and other early childhood development programs. They've spent, quite frankly, dollars that were meant for child care initiatives from the federal government elsewhere. Then at the same time, the Liberal government has actually reduced the provincial budget in these areas. In essence, what they have done is used federal moneys to replace provincial dollars in the area of child care. That was never the intent of that agreement, but that's what the government has done.

If the minister claims that she cares about child care as much as she does and she sees the benefits within it, then her government should be funding it and not cutting child care, as they are doing right now, Mr. Chair. For her to make these claims and not back them up by actions, once again it goes to show how hollow the minister's words are, how meaningless they are, how without substance her words are. Do you know what? They're not followed up by action at all, and it has no meaning for the community. You can say what you want to say, but if you don't do what you say, it means nothing for the community, in this instance, around child care.

She won't admit that the government has cut child care. She can't even do that, when the community has already identified that this is what the government has done.

The community would like to see a three-year fiscal plan showing how the federal funds would be used and where they would go. Will the minister reassure parents and provide an expenditure plan for the next three fiscal years, showing how funds received under the federal transfer arrangements will be used to build a high-quality child care system in B.C.?

Hon. C. Clark: Yes, we are working across ministries and designing a long-term plan to make sure that we can ensure there is stability in this very, very important sector.

Hon. C. Clark: We are working on it now. It could be several months before it's completed, but we are working on it as quickly as we possibly can.

J. Kwan: I would take from that answer that the minister would actually release this publicly once this is completed in a few months.

J. Kwan: So no commitment there in terms of providing this to the public for the public to see. It's all very well for the minister to work on a secret plan, but if the public doesn't see it, it's meaningless once again. So no commitment there for openness and accountability. So much for openness and accountability that this minister and this government like to brag about when, in fact, they can't even live up to those simple standards they have set for themselves.

What are the early childhood development programs that this government has identified as priority programs? What are the priority programs for this ministry?

Hon. C. Clark: I've given the member a list of the things we are doing. All those are priorities for us, and we'll continue…. We also, I should note, do an annual report on how we are meeting our obligations under the national children's agenda. That is going to be delivered in the fall as well, for the member's reference.

J. Kwan: Yes, people will want to see the accounting of where the dollars have gone after they've been spent, but people also want to know where the dollars are going to be spent before they are spent. That's called accountability. That's called responsibility to the parents, the child care advocates and the advocates for children in the broader community.

In fact, the federal government has been lobbying hard around that. The second multilateral agreement has been changed because of that lack of accountability from provinces, and particularly from the province of British Columbia. To say, "Oh yeah, we'll give you the end result at year-end in terms of where the dollars have gone" is not good enough. The public is calling for the information prior to the spending.

The minister admitted that she's working on the plan. She should actually make that plan available to the public so that they could review it and so that they can provide input into it. That would be openness, that would be accountable, and that would include consultation that involves the public as well.

As a result of this government's cuts to this ministry, a valuable preschool program in East Vancouver — the Terraces family program — is forced to close its doors. I would like the minister to explain why this was not considered a priority for the early childhood development program for this government.

Hon. C. Clark: I apologize to the member; I don't have that level of detail here. If she has a specific constituent's concern she'd like to raise, I'd be happy to take that information right now, and we can provide her with a very specific answer to it as soon as possible.

J. Kwan: The minister listed a list of programs and said they were priorities, and I would note that the East Van program — the Terraces family program — is not part of that priority. We can certainly provide follow-up information with respect to that for the minister to prioritize this service and provide the funding to them.

Another preschool in East Vancouver, St. David's Preschool, is under threat, as well, because of this government's cuts to subsidies for low-income families. Again, the St. David's program is not considered an ECD priority. Why?

Hon. C. Clark: I'm not able to tell the member right now whether or not this is even something in our budget. It might be in the budget of another ministry. But I can identify that for her, if she provides me with more details. I'd be delighted to do that.

J. Kwan: We certainly will provide the information to the minister, and we'll provide the details around it.

By the way, I raised these two programs with the other ministry as well, and we also got the same answer from the minister: "Well, I don't think it's us; go to the other guy." We constantly get this situation where everybody says, "Not me; go to the others," and so we're going everywhere. Hopefully, we can get an answer somewhere in the midst of that.

There was a presentation to the Select Standing Committee on Finance from the Kamloops Child Development Society, which outlines how funding supported child care instead of direct care puts the majority of funding into the hands of highly paid consultants instead of into the homes and centres providing direct child care spaces.

The presentation outlines how under this government funding for direct child care has been cut, how subsidy criteria and thresholds have been changed to reduce the number of families who qualify, and how, as a result, many families that are now not able to afford access to licensed care for their children are dropping out of the workforce or leaving their children unsupervised or improperly supervised. I would like to ask the minister: what is the minister's response to this analysis by the executive director of the Kamloops Child Development Society?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, the reality is that we need…. In order to integrate children with special needs into child care settings, providers often require the support of a consultant to make sure that happens. Consultants provide a level of expertise in assessment and knowledge about the field of special needs that may not be present in a child care centre that caters mostly to typical kids, so they employ consultants to make sure that expertise is there.

J. Kwan: The funds directed in this area — what is the ratio of dollars spent towards consultants versus direct support to children?

Hon. C. Clark: I can give the member some information about this. The consultant role and the ECE educator in child care settings are two very, very distinct roles. They work together to ensure that a child is adequately supported for successful inclusion and really welcomed into the child care setting. Consultant services are often integral to the delivery of supported child care. They help parents determine need and match to inclusive child care settings. They assist with the training of support staff — all very, very important roles that they play. They also provide ongoing support and assistance with problem-solving to ensure a child continues to be successful in the child care setting.

Consultants currently carry an average caseload of about 25 to 30 children. For some consultants it is up to 60 children. Wages for that area vary from about $50,000 to $60,000, I'm advised. They play a hands-on role in day-to-day support, and they really enable the participation of children who require extra support in child care settings.

In many cases, without the support of a consultant, many children would not have the same kind of integration and welcome into a child care setting, not because there isn't an intention to welcome them but simply because there needs to be a level of expertise and a level of background and training to ensure that all of the needs of those kids are recognized on entering a child care setting that may normally, for the most part, cater to typical children.

J. Kwan: I was hoping that we'd be completed, at least my questions to the minister, for the Ministry of Children and Family Development estimates by 6 o'clock, but I think I've still got probably about 20 minutes to about half an hour worth of questions, depending on the minister's answers. Noting the time, I move that we recess until 6:35 p.m.

J. Kwan: Prior to the dinner break I was asking questions of the minister about the Kamloops Child Development Society's presentation to the Finance Committee. The issue they raise, of course, is about how the government is taking money away from direct child care and instead putting it into supported child care. The minister gave a response in terms of the government's priorities around that.

Let me be clear on the record. It isn't the case that supported child care is not important, but again we're back to that same old issue where the government is taking away needed funds in direct child care in order to fund another priority area. Again, it is a robbing-Peter-to-pay-Paul kind of analogy in terms of an approach. We established that in the Community LINK situation, and here we are with the direct child care and supported child care areas in terms of the same kinds of strategies that the government has employed.

I'll be very interested, though, in knowing how much money is being spent on consultants and…. Let me just ask that question. How much money is being spent on consultants?

J. Kwan: So that's $1.55 million, okay. That's a lot of money, $1.55 million.

The ministry's website lists a number of cross-government early childhood development programs. Could the minister please provide this House with which programs are specifically administered by the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development?

Hon. C. Clark: I am responsible, ultimately, for all of the program areas under this ministry. I'm delighted to be able to answer the member's questions today on any subject with respect to this year's estimates.

Hon. C. Clark: The question I heard was: what is the minister of state responsible for? I think I just answered that.

J. Kwan: No, the question is: on the government's website, which lists a number of the cross-government early childhood development programs, which of those programs are administered under the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development? Is the minister saying there are none?

Hon. C. Clark: Yes, all of the things under this ministry, whether it is the minister of state's area or not, ultimately are areas I'm responsible for, and I'm delighted to answer those questions today in estimates.

J. Kwan: By that answer I would assume that the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development administers nothing. One wonders why the ministry exists.

Having said that, how many FTEs are assigned to this ministry of state? Are there any?

Hon. C. Clark: I think the member must have gone through this when government was first reorganized in

July or June of 2001. I remember there being a long and complete discussion of the role of ministers of state. It is a very new, very innovative role, something that I understand has been picked up in other jurisdictions across the country.

The idea is for ministers of state to work across government to coordinate the roles of various ministries. In child care, for example, this ministry is responsible. Health has some responsibilities that play in child care, and so do the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services and the Ministry of Human Resources. There is a coordinating role that works across government and makes sure these issues are priorities across government and draws attention to all these things.

That's the role of a minister of state. The minister of state is not a ministry. I think the member, after two and a half years, still fundamentally misunderstands the way that government is structured. If she would like to have more detail about that, I can refer her back to the original debate that unfolded two and a half years ago or I could perhaps make sure that someone in government is able to provide her with a briefing on the way government is structured.

J. Kwan: In fact, what the opposition does know is that the ministers of state appear to me not to do anything at all, yet they get a partial minister's salary. The minister actually brought up this issue about ministers of state within the government, so let me just respond to that.

We, the opposition, engage in debate with the Minister of State for Women's and Seniors' Services. If the minister of state's role is to coordinate across government, to advocate around programs and also to bring programs together for delivery for government, then let me just say that the Minister of State for Women's and Seniors' Services has failed at that job by a magnitude of a millionfold.

On every question that was put to the minister of state that related to other ministries, she said: "Not me. Don't ask me. And I won't do anything in terms of coordinating or talking to anyone around these issues." The ministers of state in this government are being paid partially a minister's wage and sit as part of the executive council. They have no authority in terms of spending dollars, and that was established by the opposition. Then they have no FTEs within those ministries.

Quite frankly, I don't know what these ministers of state do except spending taxpayers' money for their salaries. That's what they do. If you check with other ministers of state in terms of their records, it will show that they produce nothing, as has been demonstrated through the estimates process with the Minister of State for Women's and Seniors' Services. The Minister of State for Early Childhood Development has nothing, has no budget, has no FTEs.

Now, there are seven reports listed on the early childhood development website for the years 2002 to 2003, and the most current appears to be January 2003. Could the minister indicate what reports the ministry might be working on that are more current in this area?

Hon. C. Clark: In lots of areas the ministry continues to work very actively on early childhood development. Our government under the leadership of our Premier has put a new focus on early childhood development that has, I think, been recognized as quite remarkable across this country. It has shown real leadership in making sure that there is a cross-government focus in this area, so we are continuing to work on issues in a wide range of areas.

I can give her an example of one thing on autism. We are making sure that our government policy works for the people that we're trying to serve and that it works across government. There is a whole range of areas where there is a range of reports that we're continuing to work on. That is very often the function of government.

J. Kwan: The minister raised the issue around autism. Strangely enough, actually, I just got an e-mail from the community about concerns about autism. Let's just canvass that, then.

Coordinate cross-government initiatives on autism spectrum disorder — one of the listed four tasks for the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development. What organizations or groups representing families support placement of autism services under the Community Living B.C. initiative?

Hon. C. Clark: I've met with parents from many different areas — people that have many different views. I've met with parents who've said they are parents of children with autism, and they have struggled with the system. Some of them support a move to community living services. Some parents of children who have autism don't support that. As I told the member a number of times previously in debate, we are working through that issue at the moment.

J. Kwan: Specifically, I'm asking what organizations or groups representing families support the placement of autism services under Community Living B.C.?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, there are a variety of opinions out there. We are doing our best to try and work through the issues that have been raised to make sure we hear the concerns that are there. Many of them are very, very legitimate concerns that government needs to be attentive to.

J. Kwan: Let me tell the minister this information. The groups representing autism parents in B.C. include Autism Society of B.C., mainly a family group; FEAT of B.C., families who do Lovaas treatment, closely linked to ASBC — they did include many individualized funding advocates initially, until they saw how the government interpreted this approach; the Gateways

parents group; Autism Kamloops; Autism Vancouver and Burnaby Network. There is also a tri-city group, which is part of the groups representing autism parents, and the B.C. Council on Autism, which has representatives from government, agencies and parents. These groups have all said they oppose or have serious concerns about the plans to move children's autism services under the Community Living B.C. initiative.

The question put to the minister: how many organizations or groups representing the placement of autism services under Community Living B.C. are supportive of it? The minister is not able to list any organizations, but I have been able to list a number of them that are opposed to it. They have expressed concerns about it.

Given that the minister of state is this person who coordinates across government in terms of cross-government initiatives on autism spectrum disorder, one would have thought that the minister of state would have done something about this. One would have thought that they would have actually tried to listen to parents around this issue.

Is it true that concern about the plans to place children's autism services under Community Living B.C. was expressed to the minister's representative at the February meeting of the B.C. Council on Autism?

Hon. C. Clark: I wasn't at that meeting, so I'm not able to answer that question right away. I could probably provide that information to the member, if she can tell me which individual it was that she is speaking about — if she knows.

In response to the other questions, I have told her…. I think we can cut to the chase on the questions here. I think where she wants to go with this is to find out whether or not government has made a decision yet about where those services for children with autism will reside — whether it will be with the ministry or whether it will be with Community Living B.C.

We are working through those issues right now. We recognize these are very thorny issues. There are very strong opinions on either side, very strongly held personal opinions that I think can evoke some really legitimate tears from people about the concerns that they raise, quite legitimate concerns that we need to make sure we consider.

We are working through those issues on that right now. We want to recognize that children with autism present very, very unique needs, as do all children. But particularly amongst children with special needs, children with autism do have very unique needs that need to be met — very complex needs, sometimes, that need to be met. Of course, it is a spectrum disorder, so there is a range of needs that also need to be met.

We are working through those issues right now. We're listening to the community out there. There is a diversity of opinions out there. There's no question about it. We will, as I said a number of times, respond in a way that we hope will be acceptable to as many people as possible. I think, much more importantly, we will respond in a way that puts the needs of children first and that takes into account the specific needs of children and makes sure that what we are doing is addressing the real needs of children with autism and putting those concerns at the forefront of our consideration, as we always certainly should in every decision we make.

J. Kwan: It is funny that the minister is asking me who the minister's representative is at these meetings. The minister said she doesn't know. You know what? She is the minister. She should know. You know, on very good….

J. Kwan: The minister is shouting at me: "You don't know either. You don't know either." You know what, Mr. Chair? The minister is the one charged with the responsibility to know what's going on with her own ministry. I have representatives from the community who sat in these meetings, and they have raised these concerns with the minister.

Maybe she thinks it is all very funny, because this is all it appears to me — just a game for the minister. Never mind the lives of the people and the families and the children that are out there, who actually depend on the government for doing the right thing. Never mind that, because for this minister it's all just a silly game, it appears to me. It is shameful the way in which she takes these questions.

The e-mail actually just came to me late yesterday from concerned parents — and particularly as we embark on the discussion about the cross-government coordination as one of the tasks highlighted under the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development as something that they need to do in relation to autism spectrum disorder. Let me just be clear in terms of what the person said. These organizations that I just put on record have all expressed concerns or are opposed to the plans to move children's autism services under Community Living B.C. They have expressed that opinion to the government time and time and time again. In fact, they have raised these concerns at several previous quarterly meetings of that council.

The minister claims that she's talked to community groups. She claims that she's in touch with what's going on with her ministry. She doesn't even know who that representative is on this council. If she is doing the coordination…. She only has four tasks, for God's sake, under this area.

J. Kwan: Only four tasks, for heaven's sake, for which the responsibility falls to the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development — one of which is to

coordinate cross-government initiatives on autism spectrum disorder. Only four things you have to do. You'd think that you would find out what is going on.

Not so from this minister, not so from this government, and it's just another example to the show how out of touch, once again, this minister is with her ministry and her areas of responsibility — in which parents and their loved ones depend on the government in doing the right thing.

It is also anticipated from these groups that the government will say the community is divided on the issue. They have already anticipated that answer. Of course, they say, the government will be able to dig up a friend or two — from, no less, Mr. Walls — who would support the move, but the majority of these groups do not support this move. The government says: "Oh, we will listen." Really? The people have been telling them at quarterly meetings, continuously. Somehow they have gapped what the community has been telling them all along.

We have received letters from the Vancouver Native Health Society concerning the aboriginal early childhood development program. I have a letter before me which was written to the opposition, raising these issues. Apparently there were surplus funds from this program in the '02-03 budget, and the Ministry of Children and Family Development officials told the society that those moneys would stay in the community. However, after a review by the Ministry of Finance auditors in the fall of 2003, they were forced to return the funding. The Vancouver Native Health Society would like to know what happened to these funds.

Hon. C. Clark: Those funds would have been reinvested in early childhood development initiatives.

I also want to correct the member. I know she makes kind of a career out of trying to mischaracterize everything that is said, but I did not say I didn't know who was responsible, who was the minister's designate. What I said was that I didn't know who was at the meeting. There are 4,000 employees of this ministry. There are many, many meetings that happen. I can't tell her with certainty who was at that particular meeting, which is why I asked her, in response to her question…. I'm surprised she asks questions where she doesn't even have that kind of basic background.

If she would like me to follow up on that question and she can tell me if it was Cam Keller, who is the provincial autism director, who was at that meeting — it is possible it could have been — or if it was someone else, I'd be delighted to give her an answer. In the absence of information from the member to clarify her questions, I'm afraid I'm not able to answer, obviously, as fully as she'd like.

J. Kwan: Maybe the minister should take some lessons with her listening skills. I never asked the question about who is the representative. I asked this question: is it true that concerns about the plans to place children's autism services under Community Living B.C. were expressed to the minister's representative at the February meeting of the B.C. autism council? That was the question.

The minister did not know the answer to whether or not it's been expressed not only at that meeting, as I've highlighted for the minister's information now…. Not only was that expressed in the February meeting but, in fact, at several previous meetings as well — quarterly meetings of the council. If the minister was diligent in her work and took her work responsibility seriously, she might have actually found out from her staff — her representative — at these meetings what went on at these meetings and what was expressed and who said what, to get a sense of how people are feeling.

If the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development only has four tasks to do, one of which is to coordinate across government around the autism issues, you would think that they might take the trouble to find that information out and listen to the council that was appointed by this government. That is the issue I'm raising. Then people have said to the minister that they don't like…. The majority of them are concerned about this plan, and it's falling on deaf ears.

I asked the minister to name one group that would actually support the placement of autism services under Community Living B.C., and the minister was not able to do so. I have only named one, two, three, four, five, six, seven groups that are not supportive. They are the majority of the groups in the community that are concerned and have been doing excellent work and good work in this area. That goes to show you, Mr. Chair. The minister's inability to answer the question shows you how out of touch she really is.

The Vancouver Native Health Society. The minister says all of those funds are being reinvested back into early childhood development. That wasn't the promise for the community. The promise was that it would be reinvested back into the community itself in Vancouver. I want the minister to be very specific about where that reinvestment went, and how much.

Hon. C. Clark: They are being reinvested in Vancouver. We're still working out where exactly that money is going to go, but that reinvestment is going to happen in Vancouver. It's part of building capacity in the aboriginal communities, as I've discussed in detail with the member. We'll continue to work on that and make sure we build as much capacity as we can in the aboriginal community in advance of changing governance for aboriginal people, because it's so important that we make sure aboriginal people deliver services in aboriginal communities.

I know there's nothing this member would like more than to see what we call the governance agenda fail. She's worked as hard as she can over the last couple of years to try and throw the entire governance agenda off the rails, to make sure that giving services for community living to the community to run — that third wave of deinstitutionalization…. She's worked hard to make sure that doesn't happen.

She's worked hard to make sure the change in governance structure, so that services for children and families are delivered in community by community…. She's worked hard to make sure that doesn't happen.

She's talked sometimes about how she wants to make sure we cut the money that's available for planning committees for aboriginal planning. She wants to make sure that aboriginal services aren't delivered in community either. I can think of no other reason that she spends so much time trying to undermine and bash the process.

There are, I'm sure, lots of concerns and criticisms that could be quite legitimately raised. We certainly hear those from the community, and we certainly hear those from our own staff. We work to try and address those, if we can. The process won't be perfect, but it is quite astonishing how this member can't come up with one positive thing to say about the vision to move to community governance in aboriginal services, in children and family development services, in community living services.

It would be easy and obvious for anyone to conclude that the only reason she fails to offer any kind of constructive choice is because she's opposed to it. If they don't draw that conclusion, the next conclusion you'd have to draw is that she has no policy, she has no ideas, she has no thoughts to offer, she has no platform, and she has no leader that's willing to run for office. I think it's quite obvious why the NDP got kicked out of office as roundly as they did. They are a party of people that is totally bankrupt of ideas. They've had two and a half years to get their act back together. They haven't done it, and they still haven't got a platform of ideas to present to the public.

J. Kwan: You know what? The minister is very worried about Carole James. As I said in this House before: don't worry; Carole James will be in this House. And you know what? She'll be in this House as the Premier, the next Premier of British Columbia. And you know what? Maybe the minister is very worried about all of this. You know why? We will actually elect another member — another New Democrat person — replacing the former Minister of State for Mental Health. That would actually bring three New Democrats into this House. You know what? With two New Democrats in this House, it's got this government on the ropes already. With three and our leader out in the community, just imagine what would happen.

You know what, Mr. Chair? The polls are already showing that British Columbians are losing faith with this government. A Premier who is hugely — well, very — unpopular…. His popularity is on the definite decline, and so, too, is the Liberal Party. Actually, the NDP is now, according to the most recent poll, above where the Liberals are at in popularity.

And so, you know, I'm not worried about where the NDP's going. I'm not worried about our platform. We're working diligently on developing that, and the community will be judging what the leadership of Carole James will be and what the NDP has to offer versus this record of the Liberal government. So don't you worry. After the next election — you know what? — I would expect that many of the Liberal MLAs who've been silent and unable and unwilling to represent their constituents would be turfed from office. The judgment will rest with the constituents and the voters of British Columbia. I am not worried about it one bit.

The minister claims that I don't support community capacity-building. We already dealt with this. Maybe if the minister did yet another word search, she would actually find that I support community capacity-building. If the minister did yet another word search and maybe got her researchers and staff to look at previous Hansard statements, in particular on second reading on the interim authority legislation that was tabled, she would note my comments around that. She would know that what I'm opposed to is this government cutting the budgets through a major restructuring approach, particularly in terms of supporting the community in taking the power and the control and making determinations for their children and the best outcomes for their children, particularly for children in care, particularly for aboriginal children. It is absolutely on the record that I support the community having that power.

Do you know what? I would support the community having the capacity to do that but not through a mist of budget cuts, as this minister and this government has done to the community, which has actually created budget instabilities with this process and then caused the chaos that this government is now faced with within the ministry. Let us be clear about that.

The minister likes to think that I'm fearmongering around these questions. The Vancouver Native Health Society asked specifically for the opposition to raise these questions in this House. They want to know what has happened to the surplus money from their aboriginal early childhood support program for the fiscal year 2002-03. They want to make sure that the $409,000 is directed back to the community. They say the local Ministry of Children and Family Development officials have promised that the money could stay in the community. However, they say that after a review by the Ministry of Finance auditors last fall, they were forced to return the money, and now they don't know where the money has gone. They want to know what's happened to it.

The minister says they are still working on it; they don't have that information. Well, the fiscal year ends very quickly, by the end of today. Maybe the minister will know, all of a sudden, by tomorrow. In less than two hours maybe the minister will have a reawakening and all of a sudden discover: "Oh, the fiscal year has ended. We better figure out what's happened to this money and where it is going for the fiscal year of '04." The community will await that information, and I certainly will await that information from the minister. I ask the minister to provide that information to us in writing so that we can bring that information back to the Vancouver Native Health Society.

That's one request of the minister. The other question that I have for the minister is this. The Vancouver Native Health Society was one of the groups designated to receive funding from the 2001 federal-provincial-territorial early childhood development agreement. What accountability mechanisms exist to ensure that federal funds actually flow to the organizations designated to receive them?

Hon. C. Clark: The answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second question is that she needs to put that question…. It's federal money, federal accountability.

I have a question for her. Is the reason that Carole James won't run for office because she's afraid to? Is she afraid to stand up and be accountable in this House? Is she afraid that people might find out what she stands for? Or is the reason that she's afraid she will lose in the by-election? Or item No. 3. This is a multiple choice: (a) is she afraid, (b) is she worried she might lose, or (c) is the problem that this member thinks she is so competent that if Carole James came in, she might have trouble filling her shoes?

The Chair: Okay, I hope everybody feels really much better now that everyone's vented. Now let's get back to the debate for the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, and I hope there's a question in this, related to the ministry.

J. Kwan: The minister posed a bunch of questions to me, and the answer is: none of the above. Maybe it's this government that is afraid of what Carole James is doing out in the community, as she actually connects with the grass-roots community and talks to the voters and travels from community to community. Maybe this Premier is very worried about what Carole James is doing, as she continues to go up in the polls, as the Premier's rating continues to go down in the polls, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Member, order, please. Order, please. Let's get back to the debate on the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

J. Kwan: I would be happy to, and I hope that the same rules apply to everyone in the House.

What accountability mechanisms exist to ensure that federal funds actually flow to the organizations designated to receive them? The minister says it's federal funds. It's federal funds given to the provincial government, which this minister is administering. So own up to your responsibility — to the minister — and answer the question.

Hon. C. Clark: The member is going to have to clarify which funds she's talking about specifically. There is a lot of federal money that comes into the province and into the ministry, and I don't know if she's talking about the children's agenda money or if she's talking about another specific envelope of money. If she knows what she's talking about, perhaps she could give me a little more clarification.

J. Kwan: If the minister wasn't so busy engaged with her political rhetoric, she would have actually heard what I said. That is this. The Vancouver Native Health Society was one of the groups designated to receive funding from the 2001 federal-provincial-territorial early childhood development agreement. What accountability mechanisms exist to ensure that federal funds actually flow to organizations designated to receive them? Maybe if the minister does a word search on that question, she'll find it now on record probably three times.

Hon. C. Clark: I think I've answered it three times. I'll respond again, though. The answer to that question is that we report yearly on that. We've entered into a signed agreement with the federal government about the accountabilities around that. We provide that accountability every year on the agreement. We are continuing to work with the federal government — very productively, I might add — on those issues, and I'm very much looking forward to continuing to make sure that we make that agenda known.

You know, it is part of making strong families. When we spend money on early childhood development and when we invest in the early years, that's about creating strong families. Strong families are a product of a whole range of things, early childhood development being one of them. But the ability to get a job and come home and pay your mortgage is another one. That makes strong, stable, functioning families.

In our government we are working to create jobs. There were 129,000 jobs created in the last two years in British Columbia through the hard work of the people in our province, while the NDP sits back and says it wants to destroy jobs in aquaculture and it wants to destroy jobs in oil and gas. Carole James wants to stop mining; Carole James wants to stop forestry across British Columbia. Carole James wants to stop all those economic activities that are so important in supporting families and making sure people can bring home a paycheque and put food on the table.

J. Kwan: If the minister wants to invite the debate to go right till 9 o'clock and then till tomorrow and after the Easter holidays on these estimates, I am much obliged to do exactly that. I would actually be happy to do exactly that. If the minister wants to continue on, then we will be back after Easter debating the estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development. It's up to the minister in terms of how she wants to

play this and how long we go. She might think it's all very funny and it's all fun and games. It isn't.

Once again, to remind the minister…. The minister says that early childhood development dollars are there to ensure that strong families are built and that parents within those family units would be able to have jobs. Hopefully the children, when they grow up, would also have economic success with respect to employment opportunities and so on. I don't dispute that. Early childhood development is fundamental to our future successes, and it's been recognized by experts across the globe. I don't dispute that for one minute.

Child care dollars have also been recognized as an important component of early childhood development — absolutely. There's been research done out there that says direct child care benefits the development of children in terms of early childhood development. Yet what does this government do in that area? They've cut child care subsidies to make it more difficult for low- and moderate-income families to access child care, to the tune of $23 million worth of cuts. The government is cutting and taking money away from child care initiatives and other early childhood developments in terms of spending — taking it away and putting it elsewhere, in other areas that this government calls priorities, to the tune of $27.6 million, and 46 cents out of every increased dollar from the federal government…. The provincial government is reducing moneys in that ratio in the area of child care, reducing provincial dollars.

The government is taking federal dollars to replace provincial dollars that were there under the previous administration. Let us be very clear in terms of where we stand on child care. We support universal child care in British Columbia. It was this government that cancelled universal child care. Universal child care would help not only early childhood development for kids and children in the system, but it would also help parents to get jobs and to keep jobs.

Child care options, when they're available, would allow for the parents to support the economy. In fact, when I travel across the province, parents, and particularly single parents, have said to me that they lost their jobs because they lost child care when the government changed the eligibility threshold for child care subsidies. That put parents into jeopardy in terms of their economic success — but not only that. Some of the parents that I spoke with, and particularly single parents, said that they now have to work underground. By that, they've put themselves into jeopardy and their children into jeopardy. That's what this government is doing to our community, to members of our community, and that's what this government is doing when they say it supports early childhood development. Their actions do not match their words at all.

The minister's answer about accountability mechanisms is that they have accountability mechanisms, and they would do a report. She never actually answered the question. Let me try another question. Were other groups forced to return funding?

Hon. C. Clark: Staff advise me that they're not aware of any other areas, outside of the aboriginal ones we've talked about, where there's been a return of money required.

J. Kwan: In other words, all the other groups that received federal moneys under this early childhood development agreement spent all of their moneys. So there are no surpluses, then?

Hon. C. Clark: That's a completely different question. The answer to that question is that — and this is not kind of an "in other words" answer; this is a different answer — we expect that agencies — most of them or many of them are non-profit agencies — would spend the money that they have, if there is a surplus as well, within the terms of their enactment as a society.

J. Kwan: Well, the minister gave two answers. When I asked the question of whether other groups were forced to return funding, she said no; no other groups were required to do that. Then, of course, that naturally led to the other question. The logic would be that none of the other groups had a surplus. That's why they weren't made to return the moneys.

In the case of Vancouver Native Health, they were forced to return the moneys because there was a surplus. So if there are surpluses with other agencies, why weren't they forced to do the same thing that Vancouver Native Health was?

Hon. C. Clark: We're not able to conclude that the instance the member is talking about is simply because there was a surplus. We're not able to conclude that that's why the money was required to be returned.

J. Kwan: The minister says, then, that the information provided by Vancouver Native Health is not trustworthy. She's not certain at all, in fact, if the money that was returned was a surplus — although this is what the letter said, and I quoted it onto the record. That's what Vancouver Native Health knows.

Let me ask the minister this question for information, then. I would like to receive a list of the agencies that receive dollars from the 2001 federal-provincial-territorial early childhood development agreement — what those agencies are and how much they've spent to date. Are there any agencies that have a surplus, unspent dollars, from those agreements? How much is the surplus, and what happened to the surplus? Were they made to return the surplus, like Vancouver Native Health is being made to do? If they're not being made to return the surplus, I would like an explanation as to why not.

Hon. C. Clark: I would think that most of the member's questions will be answered when we do our annual report in the fall.

J. Kwan: No, I'm not going to be looking to the annual report for these answers. I want a specific answer

and commitment from the minister to respond to my question directly, in writing. This was an issue raised by Vancouver Native Health, who sent us, the opposition, a letter about this. I want to know whether or not they're the only organization who has been singled out to return a surplus to the ministry. If that's the case, fine. If they're the only organization that has a surplus and then they were made to return it, fair enough. But if other organizations also had a surplus, were they made to return the surplus as well? If not, then I would like to know why not and how much was not being made to be returned. I would like to know why there was a discrepancy in the treatment of this organization versus that of others.

Hon. C. Clark: We will endeavour to get the information for the member, but it will be…. Many of the answers to the questions she's asked will be contained in that annual report, which is what we're focused on making sure we get prepared and get prepared properly.

J. Kwan: The information which I receive will be forwarded to Vancouver Native Health for their information so they know exactly what is being done and how the government is dealing with these issues.

I'd like to know from the minister…. The returning of dollars from agencies that might have a surplus or that were unspent…. In terms of that approach, was it limited only to the early childhood development program funds, or did it also occur in other MCFD program areas?

Hon. C. Clark: I've canvassed staff collectively around me — I've got a vast wealth of experience sitting here in the chamber with me — and we aren't aware of any instances where surpluses in early childhood development have been returned to the government, so I don't know what the basis for the member's question is. If there are questions from Vancouver Native Health, we can certainly make sure that we will contact them directly and provide them with any information they need.

J. Kwan: Let me just put the whole letter from Vancouver Native Health on record so that there's no confusion about this. Vancouver Native Health wrote to the opposition, and they also wrote to Libby Davies. It goes like this:

So it's a direct question from a constituent from the community that they wish the opposition to put to the minister, and that's why I'm asking these questions. Of course, the questions that would flow would be: what other organizations were put into this situation, if any? How much was the surplus, and how did the government deal with that? If they were dealt with differently, why? What is the rationale for that?

And then, of course, the other question that flows…. In terms of this kind of situation, was this limited to the early childhood development program funds only, or did it occur elsewhere in the Ministry of Children and Family Development program areas?

I would expect to receive information from the minister around that. Having said that, I understand that other members in this House have questions for the minister, and so I would simply close with these statements.

We have established through the estimates process that the ministry and the minister claim that budget reductions for organizations to the tune of $15 million were somehow voluntary. We have since then received ample information from the community that disputes that. We continue, by the way, to receive that information from the community, who take much offence to the minister's statement on this front.

We have heard from the minister that she cares about children. Yet we see in the Community LINK program that the ministry has actually cut $3 million out of the Community LINK program in Vancouver, jeopardizing children and families with respect to the programs that they depend on and, in fact, programs that are award-winning and recognized nationally and internationally.

We have established from the minister that she cares — so-called, she cares — about early childhood development, yet a critical area of early childhood development…. The government has slashed the budget significantly in the area of direct child care, impacting families and children alike and impacting the economy as well.

We have heard from the minister that they are spending their money wisely and they are managing well. Yet we have the Doug Walls scandal, which illustrated the government did not manage the ministry and the reorganization well at all.

We have established through this estimates process that the minister consistently has not listened to the public, and she has demonstrated that in this set of estimates. Not only would she not listen to the public, she certainly would not take questions put to her, and she would not take criticisms put to her — constructive criticisms put to her from the community about concerns.

We have established that the FTEs, in terms of ministry staff that provide for the good services that they do in the Ministry of Children and Family Development, do not necessarily correspond and match the cuts that the government has imposed on the communities.

We have established from this set of estimates that the government has created extreme chaos in the process of reorganization and the restructuring of the ministry. We have established that the government with its major budget cuts in the ministry continues to hurt communities, that they continue to compromise the restructuring process that the government has embarked on and that the entire financial budget instability that the ministry and the community are faced with is caused by this government alone and nobody else.

Community groups have urged the government to stop, to take note and to recognize the harm that they have done and to reinstate the funding cuts in the Ministry of Children and Family Development — to no avail. I will simply close with this statement. It would do the minister good and this government good to stop and pause for a moment and to listen to the community groups that have been raising concerns with them and to take their concerns seriously.

Lastly, I would simply like to thank the ministry staff, to which…. They've all been very patient, and they have been very helpful, I know, to the best of their ability, in providing answers to the opposition irrespective of the minister's lack of cooperation. I do want to recognize the staff, though, for their hard work and the diligence that they do and the support that I know they try hard to provide to the minister, whether the minister takes it or not.

V. Anderson: I'd like to cover a few areas in provincial services with the minister. One of the areas I'd like to ask her about is that in the provincial services, which are provincial specialized services, there is a listing for migrant services. The minister might explain for us what migrant services are within that listing.

Hon. C. Clark: It's a program to provide for kids who arrive in the country without guardians, and that budget area is there to make sure that we can provide some guardianship for those kids when they arrive in the country, if they come here without guardianship with them.

V. Anderson: Does that include financial support for them, or is it just legal support? What is the main area of that, and is it primarily aimed at children and their families?

Hon. C. Clark: It is intended to cover foster care and that kind of family support that they need, counselling support and social work support — all that range of services that a child who is without a guardian would require when the government becomes their guardian.

V. Anderson: Is that done through a special service, or is that done through the regular service of the ministry?

Hon. C. Clark: No. Indeed, there are dedicated social workers who provide that function.

V. Anderson: The youth custody services that are mentioned — what all does that cover? What kinds of services are under youth custody? Related to that, are there other youth services that would be offered that are not under youth custody services? Where's the distinction between those?

Hon. C. Clark: We have youth custody centres in Victoria, Burnaby and Prince George, and those provide for custody of children who are incarcerated. We also have a community corrections function in youth justice, and that is located in the regions. It's located in five different regions across the province. It's not necessarily a provincial function, but it does provide a lot of support for kids who aren't necessarily in the corrections system, who haven't necessarily been incarcerated but still require services from youth corrections.

V. Anderson: What ages are covered by youth…? What ages are in youth services, and are they for both male and female programs?

Hon. C. Clark: I'm advised that youth services for kids who are 12 to 18 are all co-ed. Just to give the member a quick rundown on the services that we provide under corrections, probation officers, community work service programs, alternative measures programs, intensive supervision programs and specialized forensic mental health services are all under this area.

V. Anderson: Another listing is provincial services for the deaf and hard of hearing. Could the minister explain what is involved in that particular area?

Hon. C. Clark: There's a residential service in Burnaby that I know the member is very passionate about, called Victory Hill. I know the member has spoken to me about it quite a bit and advocated on behalf of it a lot in his many years in this House. There's also community outreach that happens across the province to support people who have children who have hearing loss.

There's also a specialized assistant we provide that travels across the province to really support parents of kids who have this very specialized need and to make sure that parents understand the range of therapies and assistance that a parent can provide in the home and in daily life for a child — to make sure that we minimize the impact of this very, very challenging disability for kids.

V. Anderson: I appreciate that the emphasis is on helping the parents to understand, because in my ex-

perience that's where a lot of the difficulty arises — that parents haven't had the skills or the knowledge — and the frustration that they bear also then goes on to the children. Would this apply also to the blind and visually impaired? Why would we have one if we don't have the other?

Hon. C. Clark: I understand that the reason this ministry has responsibility in this area is really a product of history. The Jericho School was part of this ministry's responsibility and over the years came to be part of this ministry's responsibility. These programs are a replacement for those services that were provided through Jericho. The services for the visually impaired, I understand, are primarily provided through the Ministry of Health Services and through the Canadian National Institute for the Blind.

V. Anderson: Then the other one I wonder if the minister…. The ministry is Children and Family Development, and we talk primarily about children when we're talking about this ministry. The mission statement says that it's to promote and develop the capacity of families and communities.

In what way does the minister develop the capacity of families and communities to deal with the issues that are there? I'm wondering where the focus is on there, because I can see very easily we could overlook that. I shall be interested in some elaboration of what we do in developing the capacity of families and communities in this regard.

Hon. C. Clark: I couldn't agree with the member more. I really fundamentally believe that what we need to do as a government and as a ministry is to support families better and, where we can, to intervene in a family before a crisis arrives. Our philosophy for the last two and a half years in trying to change the culture of this ministry, in trying to change the culture of child protection, has been to say: "What can we do to support families, to build a supportive environment? How can we contribute to that? Is it through parent training? Is it through intensive supervision? Is it through that whole range of other supports that could possibly be there to try and build up the capacity of families so that they can better care for their children?"

The results of that have been quite noticeable. We have seen a reduction in the number of children in care. That's because, yes, there is declining population of children overall, but the number of children who are coming into care is falling at a much quicker rate because we are finding ways to support families so that children don't have to be taken away into government's care and they can, in fact, stay in their families.

We have embarked on a whole service redesign project across the province, where we are changing the mix of services we provide in communities to recognize, first of all, that there are changing demographic needs in communities. We need to make sure that we don't just build services based on what we've always done, because the population changes and moves and gets older. Some of the needs might get more acute; some might get less. In addition to that, recognizing that we want to change our focus to put it on family preservation and family support….

Some of the reinvestment we're doing is very much reorienting what we're doing — and this is an $83 million project we're talking about — so that we're not focusing our services just primarily on how we can take kids away from families, but instead we're trying to put a focus, if we can, as much as possible on trying to make families whole, stable, durable, predictable places for children where we know they can grow up and thrive and become productive, loving, caring adults themselves.

V. Anderson: I agree wholeheartedly with the emphasis. I'm hoping that on another occasion we'll be able to discuss how the work of the ministry in this regard can be cooperating again, which it hasn't done for some time, with the B.C. Council for Families. The B.C. Council for Families, which arose out of this Legislature 25 years ago, has been doing a lot of that work outside the government by necessity. It would be nice to bring it back in and work with the community and the volunteers and the non-profits through that kind of focus.

K. Manhas: First of all, before I begin my questions, I just want to tell the House how much I appreciate how hard the minister has worked, how much she cares, how seriously she has worked to make a difference in the lives of young people in our province and how much I appreciate working with her staff, who show that same degree of caring — like Linda Doig, who manages services in the Tri-Cities, and Robin Swets, who've shown how much they care about the services they deliver.

My first question has a couple of parts to it. My first question to the minister is: what steps is the ministry taking to increase its focus on preventative actions and building stronger connections to youth and community and to deliver the support services to youth when and where they need it, which is often outside of normal office hours or normal school hours and rather on weekends or evenings?

Hon. C. Clark: Programs like Reconnect, programs like Night Hoops, those kinds of programs across the province where we endeavour to provide those services 24 hours…. The thing that will make a real difference for kids around the clock is making sure that providing outlets for youth is not just the duty of the Ministry of Children and Family Development, but that it's something that's a part of all the different areas in our communities — whether that's the arts centre, the police station, the school, the government or a church — making sure that all of those parts of the community are engaged in doing what they can to try and interest and engage youth. I can't think of anything more important than making sure that happens.

I know that this member has been a real champion — I think probably the first champion in the provincial Legislature — for a program called youth assets development. It is because of his work that projects like Youth Matters! in the Tri-Cities have gotten as far as they have and have done so much productive work in connecting kids across the community, in providing that interface for them wherever they go. He is absolutely right that we can't just provide these services from 8 o'clock in the morning until 5 o'clock at night, when the civil service is going, or 8 o'clock in the morning till 6 o'clock at night, when the schools are going. We have to make sure that all of these programs are working for kids all of the time, and we need to recognize that kids are complex individuals, just like anyone else. They lead complex lives. They do a lot of different things in a community, and they need to find different ways to connect. Every child is different, and every child will have a preference or an ability to connect in a different way. We need to make sure that those outlets are there.

The work that this member has done, I think, has really very much led the country — in the advocacy that he's made. I'm not aware of any politician in any Legislature across the country that has championed youth assets development the way this member has. We intend to continue to work on that. We intend to continue to make sure we provide these outlets for kids. We want to continue to make sure that communities come together with all of the best thinking and most productive, focused energy that they can, to make sure that kids in our communities are a real priority and that they get the services they need.

K. Manhas: It truly is heart-warming to hear the minister talk about asset-building initiatives, because those really, I believe, are the types of ways that we will be able to, in the future, connect to all kids. If that's the future direction of the ministry, that bodes very well for our province.

The rest of my questions are largely to deal with the early childhood development aspect. My next question is on parenting supports. My question to the minister is: what kinds of services exist currently to help support new parents? As we know, there are licences that we require, once we turn 16, to be able to drive a car, but there are many parents who don't have any experience with having children in the past. My question is: is there any effort to identify high-risk parents at birth and offer supports to them in parenting?

Hon. C. Clark: We do assessments in hospitals. That happens across the province. We can do an assessment and determine whether or not a parent is likely to be high risk. Then we are able to act on that through parenting supports, through in-home visits, and there are programs like Roots of Empathy, which we support providing in schools across the province. Some school districts have taken this up with a real vision and a real vigour.

Those provide basic parenting skills to some of the youngest kids. They start really early with the kids, and there are kids who go into Roots of Empathy programs who literally will say they have never felt what it is like to be loved, and they learn how to connect with a baby. You can't overestimate the value of that for that particular child's life and for the potential that that child will become a good parent as opposed to an at-risk parent. That range of programs we provide — parent literacy across the province….

There are some places where a public health nurse will visit the home of every first-time parent. When they come into a parent's home, they'll literally pick up the baby, hold the baby, have a look at the child, make sure that there isn't any evidence of injury to the baby and have a look around the house. It's the most unintrusive, supportive way possible. They are there to help.

At the same time, by going into a home, they get a real strong sense that you can't get in any other way about whether or not a home is a risky place for that child — just the sense of the home. You get a sense of what else is going on. You can feel whether or not the parent is under other pressures that might not be visible when the mom's in the hospital. That whole range of things happens. We are tremendously indebted to the public health nurses out there who do such a tremendous job at making sure that so many babies who come home to first-time moms on their first day get the best start they can.

K. Manhas: I understand that Hawaii has some very innovative programs for providing optional support to new parents by linking them up with volunteer experienced parents who have been educated in early childhood development expertise and techniques by the state. The nationally acclaimed Healthy Start community outreach and home-visiting program for new parents has dramatically reduced the risk of child abuse and neglect while promoting optimal child development. The Hawaii initiative is led by the Hawaii Medical Association and the Governor's office, and there has been strong support for the project from Hawaii's business and philanthropic sectors as well, including Hawaii's Business Roundtable and the Hawaii Community Foundation.

My question is: is this type of program being looked at for implementation in B.C.?

Hon. C. Clark: We have a program under the Building Blocks agenda that we have called lay home-visiting. It's a program where people will go into parents' homes and actually assist them in parenting, if they appear to be at risk. It's a made-in-B.C. approach. It very much reflects the principles in the Hawaiian model, but it's a little bit different. I haven't had the opportunity to go and visit the Hawaiian experiment personally, but I understand from people who have actually had an experience with it that it is really a tremendous program, although I do understand that the

Hawaiian model is really based solely in some of the most at-risk neighbourhoods. In British Columbia we've taken a much broader approach.

These assessments happen at hospitals across the province, and then in addition to that, the lay home-visiting happens in 27 communities across the province. We have really added a B.C. touch to it by making sure that the services we're providing through that program are culturally appropriate for the family being visited.

K. Manhas: I have a family place in my riding called the Tri-City Family Place. I've been there, and it provides exceptional resources to families who have little in resources themselves. It provides a place where they can go and learn and talk with parents and volunteers and a place where their kids can play with other young children. It provides much-needed stimulation for young children. These resources are particularly helpful to new and young families who don't have much money to buy resources or toys for their young children. I know the centre would like to develop more drop-in centres like that around the community, especially in areas where there's the highest need.

I'd like to ask the minister: what concrete initiatives is your ministry planning to expand family places across my community and in communities across British Columbia?

Hon. C. Clark: I share the member's real commitment to the kinds of services that family places provide. My mother actually co-founded what is now one of the biggest service-providing agencies in Burnaby, but when she founded it, it was an organization that was dedicated to providing parenting support. That was all they did. Eventually they provided drop-in centres and things like that as well, but they provided programs where parents would come, bring their children and learn how to be better parents.

It's not just young moms who need these programs. All parents can benefit from parenting programs. I suppose the best parents are often the ones who have had lots of experience, but I've talked to lots of parents who have had lots of experience who say they've gone to parenting programs later in their lives and still found them of benefit — just a tremendous, tremendous investment we can make in changing people's lives for the better.

In '02-03 and '03-04 we allocated $1.455 million to over 130 family resource programs across the province, and that was for the enhancement and development of family resource programs.

In addition, one of the things we really focused on with this was to make sure that those programs were available after hours. You can provide lots and lots of parenting support that doesn't get used if you do it when people are at work. It's important to make sure that you provide the supports after work, when parents are available to go and visit the community centre, the local church or the local school to learn and enhance their parenting abilities.

K. Manhas: I appreciate all the minister's comments and all of her work and the work of her very caring staff. I want to just wrap up by asking the minister about…. She mentioned some of the very successful pilots that her ministry has launched, like the Roots of Empathy program. There's also the Children First learning initiative.

My question is: what plans are in place that would allow communities to expand these programs to other areas, and what plans are there to involve business and communities in partnering and moving early childhood initiatives forward?

Hon. C. Clark: One of the really terrific examples I can give the member is the Success by 6 partnership. We have invested, as a government, $10 million in that partnership, and it's intended to attract matching money from the private sector so that we can support children in their youngest years.

We are looking at more innovative partnerships like that, because there is, I think, a real appetite in the private sector to contribute to these kinds of supports. I meet people all the time who are successful in their field of endeavour, who say they'd like to find a way to try and get involved in supporting young kids, not because they want to get a corporate splash, but because they're parents themselves. We have such an opportunity, as a government, to maximize the amount of money that we have by matching funds but also to engage people in the community in a very real way that they haven't been engaged before, as opposed to excluding them, which sometimes government programs tend to do — engage them in supporting communities and supporting children, make them a part of a cultural shift in British Columbia to one where we say we value children under six enough that we will invest in them, and we recognize that that investment we make is going to pay off hugely for us in the long run.

We've also invested in the United Way–Central Credit Union partners. They are also partners in that Success by 6. I didn't mention that. They are other examples of how we've gotten the private sector engaged. There is lots more we can do.

In this ministry we have worked tremendously hard over the last two years to accomplish some of the things that we have. We have doubled the number of adoptions in British Columbia. That is so important for kids, to go from a home where they don't have a sense of certainty and permanency to a home where they do have a sense of certainty and permanency and where they know they will be on their next birthday.

We have lowered the number of children in care by focusing on family preservation, family supports. We are making sure that we try and support families before they reach a crisis so that we can try and keep kids in those families rather than taking them away into government care.

We've increased our recruitment. Our ability to recruit has improved. Our ability to retain staff that we've got has also improved, which I think speaks to the fact that there is a sense of stability out there in the public. We've invested $50 million in early childhood development. Our Premier has appointed the very first minister of early childhood development anywhere in this country. We have, I think, some of the best people working in this ministry that anyone has anywhere in government.

I am tremendously proud of what our government has accomplished in putting families first. I'm tremendously proud of the commitment our Premier has made to making sure that children are always at the forefront of our agenda.

Hon. C. Clark: I move that the committee rise, report these estimates complete and ask leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply B, having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 15; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

J. MacPhail: Are any parts of this bill needed in order for the government to proceed with its working forest initiative? Where am I looking?

J. MacPhail: I'm looking at sections 3 and 4 together, Mr. Chair, and I think these two sections need to be read together. Section 3 removes the requirement that the assessor complete a statutory declaration attesting to the validity of the assessment roll, and then section 4 restates the requirement that the assessor must certify in writing that the roll was completed in accordance with the act.

The statutory declaration referred to in section 7(1) of this act is found in the regulations of the Assessment Authority Act, and I've got it here. It's pretty straightforward and easy to understand. It basically says:

That's the statutory declaration. This act says that's what the declaration will be. Can the minister explain how the new requirement in section 4 of this bill, which requires the assessors certify in writing that the assessment roll is correct, will differ from the current statutory declaration? I'm trying to find out what the change is, if any.

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for her question. The object of sections 3 and 4 is…. In the first instance, section 3, the repeal is to streamline the act rather than having to go through the lengthy process which the member outlined. The assessor will simply certify that the certification is being done in accordance with the act. That, in turn, will facilitate the electronic transmission of the roll as per section 9 — or the new section 4.

J. MacPhail: But what does certification in writing mean? I mean, how much more simple can it get than what the old statutory declaration was? Let me be clear. I'm suspicious that this government is worried about its regulatory count — reducing the regulatory count — and that this is really just a way to reduce the regulatory count, but it means nothing. So, what's the new certification in writing going to look like?

Hon. G. Abbott: I don't know whether my answer will make the member even more suspicious than she is already. I mean, she's right. This is an attempt to simplify, streamline and deregulate. Rather than having the assessor going through a lengthier process, this is a simple certification that the certification is proceed-

ing in accordance with the act — rather than going through all the sundry provisions that are in the act around that point. So, I mean, the member's right, and we could quarrel about it if she wishes, but it is an attempt to simply simplify the measures.

J. MacPhail: Could the minister please read into the record what the written word will be?

Hon. G. Abbott: We will not be able to read it into the record because the words are still being developed — the precise words.

J. MacPhail: Does the minister guarantee that if the words are greater than what I just read into the record, he won't count the repeal of section 7(1) as a reduction in regulation? Does he guarantee that?

Hon. G. Abbott: I know this is going to make the member's day. Yes, we can guarantee that.

J. MacPhail: And another great day for British Columbians — that the minister is going to such great lengths to reduce regulation by repealing a less-than-half-page declaration and replacing it with we don't know what. But their little count will work out properly. Another great day for red tape in this province.

J. MacPhail: Section 5 repeals the Commissioner on Resources and Environment Act, the CORE act — a laudable day.

It's a great day for democracy, given that the Prime Minister is going to be out here tomorrow. Mr. Martin is going to be appointing all sorts of new candidates. We don't know who they are. I can hardly wait to see that team. I can hardly wait to see that new federal team of the Liberals. The Minister of Children and Family Development side by side with the former Premier of this province — I can hardly wait. Dave Haggard there, the three of them together….

J. MacPhail: Yes. The reason I raise it, Mr. Chair, is because, of course, the former commissioner of CORE was Stephen Owen, who is a federal Liberal, we hear, as well. So I'm very much looking forward to it.

It is a day of mourning, though, I would say — the fact that this government is repealing the CORE act just the day before that great marriage in heaven is made. I look forward to it.

Mr. Chair, during second reading debate the minister stated that "the commission was charged with developing a provincewide strategy for land use in environmental management, facilitating regional planning processes, ensuring participation in such processes by aboriginal people and coordinating government initiatives with respect to resource management" — to quote the minister at second reading. Very laudable — laudable goals, laudable results.

The minister then goes on to state that "the commissioner submitted his final recommendation some years ago and no longer exists, and so the act is being repealed." I guess this is cleaning up the past as well. What the minister does not mention is that by repealing this act, here is what he's also repealing — that the act allows for the commissioner to be reappointed.

Ten years after the first CORE commissioner, Stephen Owen, was appointed, maybe it's time to have a further independent look at how we're managing our land base, something I know this government is not that happy to do. Let's not forget that fully one-third of the land use plans have yet to be completed — fully one-third. The government's fooling around with that one-third as well.

At the same time that this minister is repealing an act that provided for the most expansive and complete public consultation, as a result of this act that they're now repealing in this section, we still have no idea what this government plans for land use.

We do know that the secret caucus committee is travelling about the province to talk about land use. It will be interesting to see whether the government actually releases that caucus committee report. They're not big on releasing caucus committee reports. The mining report, I think, is still buried.

Anyway, I just want to read what section 4 of the CORE act sets out in the mandate of the commissioner, and this is what the government is now repealing. Section 4(1):"The commissioner must develop for public and government consideration a British Columbia wide strategy for land use and related resource and environmental management." That's gone with this government. Section 4(2): "The commissioner must facilitate the development and implementation and must monitor the operation of the following: regional planning processes, community-based participatory processes, a dispute resolution mechanism." Section 4(3): "The commissioner must work to ensure effective and integrated management of the resources and environment of British Columbia." That's gone now.

Section 4(5): "In carrying out the mandate under this section, the commissioner must give due consideration to the following: (a) economic, environmental and societal interests; (b) local, Provincial and federal governmental responsibilities, (c) the interests of Aboriginal peoples." With the stroke of a pen, all that's gone.

Let's compare that with the mandate of the secret caucus committee chaired by the member for North Coast and established by the Premier. Now, I'm not

talking about any internal workings of caucus — who's in, who's out. I know that's out of order, Mr. Chair. I'm not talking about who's been in caucus or not for a few days. That's out of order. I'm just talking about the secret caucus committee that this government has established to look at land use.

Here's the secret caucus committee's mandate: "…to review how Crown land use plans are implemented across the province and to recommend to government how those processes can be improved." Of course, we don't have the land use plans, so there's a bit of a gap there about how we're actually going to get the land use plan.

That's it. That's the entire effort this government is putting into land use plans — the entire effort. No public consultation, no public input, no ensuring that the interests of aboriginal people are taken into account — just the member for North Coast and his happy band of five other backbenchers. They're meeting in private so that they can then develop private recommendations to give to the Premier that will probably remain private forever.

Here's what the chair of this secret committee had to say when he was asked in Kamloops what the purpose of his committee was. He said, "We want to understand better the components of land use planning, how land use plans are put in place and the impact they have on communities and individuals," as if these land use plans are kind of like…. They rise up out of the forest on their own. Little munchkins come along and say, "Here's a land use plan, " as if they're created separate and apart from government. Here's what the member for North Coast then did. He described them as "living documents," but in need of "a mechanism for change."

Then the justification for holding this discussion in secret, according to the member for North Coast, is that his committee was a cabinet committee, and therefore that justified holding secret meetings. I thought maybe they had to be in secret in case there was discipline applied during those meetings that no one wanted to have revealed, but anyway, it's the member for North Coast saying that the meetings are going to be held in secret. It's a caucus committee. It's not a cabinet committee, so I'm not quite sure what the member for North Coast was saying. The only reason for secrecy is to keep private the most fundamentally important public discussion in our province.

As we know, the caucus task force on mining at least had the courage to openly consult the public. They had public meetings. The Premier's not going to do anything with that, and the Minister of Energy and Mines has subsequently refused outright to make that report public. Fortunately, someone from the government caucus leaked the report. I wonder how that went down inside that old caucus, those rules that that caucus has.

The government caucus leaked the report, thank God. Here's what Vaughn Palmer had to say about land use planning. Here's what he reports on what that report said, which we don't know anything about: "'Government must change its approach to land use planning,' says the mining task force. 'The mining task force was told repeatedly that land use planning and access is today the number one obstacle to vigorous restoration of the B.C. mining industry. After years of land planning intended to achieve "certainty," the problem of increasing uncertain access to the land has become paramount.'"

That's what we know that the secret mining task force reported about land use planning. Anyway, thank God that the government caucus leaks. Thank God, Vaughn Palmer gets the leaks and reports on them. Let me ask this question…. Given that that report is never going to be acted upon — the Premier confirms that, and the Minister of Energy and Mines confirms that — and given the fact that this government is now repealing any act that would require public input, aboriginal input, it's become readily apparent to everyone that the government is intent on changing those land use plans that have been completed and they're intent on ensuring a greater presence for industry in the incomplete plans.

Why does the minister not remove the secretiveness of the process of the caucus committee? Why doesn't he just reappoint a CORE commissioner? He can choose the CORE commissioner — maybe someone like David Emerson. Oh, David Emerson is busy. Sorry — someone like David Emerson. David Emerson apparently is very busy with Ujjal Dosanjh, Dave Haggard, the Deputy Premier and the Minister of Finance, but I'm sure we could find a CORE commissioner. Why doesn't the minister do that so we can at least have some open discussion about land use planning?

Hon. G. Abbott: Perhaps the member herself will be available to do some of those things shortly. I understand she may not be running for office here again. Given some of the recent patterns in terms of the movement from New Democrat to Liberal, perhaps she's thinking that way herself. Certainly, with the fine example she's given of how focused she can be with respect to the issues at hand, it would be hard not to consider her tonight.

I guess we should actually address the original question. Section 5, I think, is where the member started. I think we canvassed quite a lot of the land base in British Columbia after starting on section 5. The member is right. the Commission on Resources and Environment really isn't needed any longer. It's been inactive now for over a decade. You know, while one may feel a bit of whimsy and sentiment around the repeal of something that hasn't been in use for some time, I'm sure the member herself feels the same thing when she thinks back on the Winnipeg Declaration and the Regina Manifesto and some of those documents that guide the New Democratic Party to this day.

I'm sure she feels some sentiment around seeing the end of the CORE commissioner, as is set out in section 5. The member is right. Stephen Owen is no longer available. He's been a federal member and minister for

some years now. She's right. Ujjal Dosanjh is no longer available. He would have been a distinguished person for that position, but he's apparently running for the federal Liberals in the upcoming federal election. I gather Dave Haggard, who I guess is a former New Democrat as well, is considering running, so apparently he would not be available either.

Now, I'm not sure how this works out. Maybe they can be federal Liberals and provincial New Democrats. I'm not sure if that constitutional provision is still there. Perhaps it's been repealed. I don't know the answer to that question.

I can reassure the member on a couple of points, though. The land and resource management plan process is, in fact, in place and is working very well in the province today. I'll give her a comparison, because the member raises the issue. I think it's important for me to point out, for her edification and for her satisfaction, that in fact in the LRMP process we're working on in Lillooet, in the central coast, in the North Coast, in Morice, in Sea to Sky — six major plans — we're actually building consensus on all those plans.

I'll give the member a good example. Here's a comparison. This goes to the difference between the secretive NDP approach to LRMPs and our own very open and consensus-based processes. In Lillooet the NDP government, just prior to the last provincial election — you may recall this, Mr. Chair — had two plans. They said: "Well, we're going to do one of these two." In the end they brought forward — they imposed, in fact — a plan that wasn't the product of any sort of consensus.

First nations were certainly not part of that consensus. In fact, they weren't even consulted. That's an astonishing kind of secrecy from a government that claims to be open. Communities were certainly not a part of that consensus. In fact, I can go up to my office and get a letter from the mayors of Lytton and Lillooet saying that it was a gross betrayal by the NDP government of those communities when they imposed the Lillooet LRMP in 2001. They certainly weren't a part of that. I mean, this is the part that the NDP really likes. Mining certainly….

Hon. G. Abbott: Mining certainly wasn't a part of that consensus. Forestry wasn't part of that consensus. I'm sure the NDP was good with that, but nobody was a part of that consensus. The only consensus was apparently within a portion of the NDP cabinet, but only a portion of that cabinet. I know Harry Lali, who I think…. I'm not sure if he's running federally or not. Perhaps he is. Have you heard? The member over here might have the inside information on that. I don't know. He may be running. I don't know. Or perhaps he's running for the NDP. I have no idea. But I know that he said the Lillooet LRMP as of 2001 was a gross betrayal of his constituents in Yale-Lillooet.

I think what we're bringing forward, the new plan, will in fact enjoy consensus, and we are consulting with first nations. There's nothing secretive about those processes at all. In fact, I'm very much encouraged by the outcome of those processes. We're getting consensus for the first time. I know it takes years to get over that legacy of distrust that came from that period roughly from 1991 to 2001, but we are overcoming that. Thanks to the work of the former minister and others, we're overcoming that legacy of distrust that we had from the former government.

Now, I guess the member may ask the question: "Well, are we really helping to overcome that by the repeal of something that hasn't been used for well over a decade now?" I'd say it's probably pretty much unaffected by that. I know that the member wanted to get up and do a little bit of a rant on this point, so I'm happy to let her.

On the other point, the member claims that there is a secret caucus committee. Well, it's astonishing. For a secret caucus committee, the member appears to know an incredible amount about a secret caucus committee. In fact, I think if our government was setting out to create a secret caucus committee….

Hon. G. Abbott: If we were setting out to create a secret caucus committee, one of the things we wouldn't do would be to have the Premier announce it at UBCM. I don't think he would do that, because it's not the good start that you need for a secret caucus committee — to announce it in front of possibly 1,500 delegates to the Union of B.C. Municipalities convention. That's not the way I would do it. Perhaps that's the way the member would do it. I mean, she and her small caucus can meet and actually…. They could meet in secret, really, and we wouldn't even know it, because it's quite small. It's quite small.

Certainly, I would not go to UBCM and announce a secret caucus committee. In fact, as that committee has gone and done its work around the province, they've met with all kinds of people. There's nothing secretive about it at all. It is very constructive, and I'm sure that I will be furnished and that the government will be furnished with some very good advice from that committee down the line.

There's nothing secret. The LRMP process is in full bloom. It's doing great, and I think we can get through this by even repealing section 5.

J. MacPhail: It is true that two of us represent 42 percent of the population, the voters — that's true — and 70-odd of you represent 39 percent of the population. I do appreciate that. We do have our work cut out for us.

Is the minister guaranteeing that the secret caucus committee led by the member for North Coast — that his report will be made public in full…?

Hon. G. Abbott: It's not my role to tell caucus committees what to do. Clearly, it is beyond the purview of this bill to do that. I guess I could read into the record all kinds of details about fast ferries or any other host of things, but that would be quite irrelevant to the bill as well. If the member has a question about section 5, I'd be delighted to hear it, and I'd even attempt to answer it. But the nonsense she is spouting is not worth responding to.

J. MacPhail: I am, Mr. Chair. It's unbelievable that the minister doesn't understand. He is repealing the act that provides for land use planning, inclusive land use planning, and he is replacing it — his government is replacing it — with a secret caucus committee.

All I'm asking, unlike the caucus report of the mining task force, which this government has buried and has admitted that they will never release…. Will this minister, who seems to have full confidence in their land use planning processes…? Now that he's repealing the previous land use planning process by this legislation, will he guarantee the release of the caucus report?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member appears to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what's being proposed here. The commissioner on resources and environment is not being replaced by any caucus committee. The successor process to that, as the member well knows because her government actually initiated some of these, is land and resource management plans. That is the process which succeeds CORE.

CORE has been redundant for over a decade. The member well knows that. For some reason she wishes to rag the puck on this. We can have lots of fun on it. I'll go as long as she wants to go on it. There is no secret caucus committee. The land and resource management plans are the way in which Crown lands are going to be zoned in the future.

Hon. G. Abbott: We are working towards a resolution of the six plans, which I outlined in my earlier answer, by the end of 2004.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm glad to provide the member with that information, given that it is, I think, kind of tangential to this bill. I don't have that information here, but I'm glad to provide it to the member.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member says that I brought it up. In fact, I did bring up that land and resource management plans are the successor process to the CORE process.

J. MacPhail: Well, the minister's really getting into his new role. He's as chippy and sometimes ill-informed as he was in his previous role.

Section 8 adds three new means by which the minister can sell off or otherwise dispose of Crown land. How much land does the minister anticipate will be made available because of these new measures?

J. MacPhail: Given that this section must have some purpose, how much money does the minister expect to raise? It's right there. There's got to be some purpose for this section.

Hon. G. Abbott: While I often like to cater to the member's occasionally hysterical concerns and conspiracies around these kinds of things…. What is at work in this section 8 and the repeal of section 11(1)? Currently, the minister may only dispose of Crown land in certain ways: public auction, public notice of tender or public drawing of lots. What this section will do is add public requests for proposals, listing with licensed real estate agents and land exchanges to the existing list of methods by which the minister can dispose of Crown land. So it's really just an attempt to modernize the legislation in line with new ways of selling land.

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, I'm not sure why something as tangential to the bill as this is being requested, but the answer, I'm advised by staff, is that it varies by region.

J. MacPhail: I know the government likes the odds of how many of them compared to one person actually asking questions, but these are legitimate questions. What's the range of prices, lowest to highest? How much Crown land was sold in the year '03-04?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, I'm happy to provide the member with that information. We don't come armed with that on something as tangential to this bill as what she is suggesting.

The value of land varies for a whole range of reasons — the region it is in, as I noted; the zoning that is assigned to it. Some Crown land is within municipalities; some of it is adjacent to areas like West Vancouver. Other areas are hundreds of miles from the nearest

municipality. Obviously, there is going to be an enormous range based on those two things, plus access. There is really no better answer to that. In fact, there is nothing in section 8 that will change the value of land. What it does is allow Land and Water B.C. to modernize the range of ways in which they can convey land.

J. MacPhail: I find it amazing that we have a section that talks about the government being able to dispose of surveyed or unsurveyed Crown land by any of the following means, and the minister thinks my questions are irrelevant. His lack of preparation is embarrassing.

Hon. G. Abbott: It's the questions, actually, that should be embarrassing, not the answers.

J. MacPhail: Well, I wonder whether the minister will be prepared on this one.

This section amends section 3(3) of the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing Act. It allows the minister to delegate the minister's powers under the act to a government corporation or a public servant.

The present act only allows the minister to "delegate the function of signing a document to another person," so the new provision greatly expands what can be delegated and allows for the minister to delegate to a "government corporation." It goes on and on to say how that will be done.

There is an amendment that will mean that a government corporation will be made responsible for the administration of Crown land resources. The establishment of parks, preservation of natural scenic and historic features, the administration and enforcement of safety standards on Crown land — on and on — for selling Crown land, for the establishment of procedures for the sale of Crown land, the purchase price for Crown land and regulating improvements to Crown land — so a huge expansion of delegation…. Is it Land and Water B.C. that the minister is going to delegate these responsibilities to and, if so, why?

Hon. G. Abbott: I hope this brings considerable comfort to the member. The delegation of powers that is proposed in these changes to the University Endowment Land Act and the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing Act is pursuant and subsequent to a delegation agreement that has existed since 2001 between Land and Water B.C. and the government, and between the former B.C. Assets and Land Corporation and the government which has been in place since 1996. The delegation agreements have been around for some time between the agency, whether it was BCAL or Land and Water B.C., and the government.

The delegation is limited to the University Endowment Land Act and the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing Act, so it is not cross-government.

J. MacPhail: In spite of all that, there have been huge changes to Land and Water B.C. under this administration. In fact, they have quite a nefarious reputation. Land and Water B.C. was complicit in the scandal over forgiving fines to aquaculture firms, for instance. In fact, the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries didn't even know that Land and Water B.C. was returning those fines. He found out about it in the media. It was shocking.

Land and Water B.C. did this all on their own. Their recent history of ignoring the wishes of local governments and citizens and not even consulting with the ministers of the Crown…. Why is this government giving it greater legislated authority over selling Crown land just when their reputation has been horribly besmirched?

Hon. G. Abbott: It is sadly typical of this New Democratic Party opposition — as, indeed, I think it was often characteristic of them as a government — that they like to dump on public servants in this province because of their own incompetence. It is shameful, frankly, how they so quickly will dump the woes that are produced by their own ineffectiveness, by their own incompetence, onto hard-working, dedicated public servants in this province. That includes Land and Water B.C.

The member is wrong. Her characterization of the events around the remission of the fines is entirely incorrect and inappropriate. I'm sure it will be yet another event for which she will wish to apologize down the line, because she is absolutely wrong. The fines were levied in error. LWBC looked at that, and they corrected it. The member should look at this situation carefully before she blames public servants when they are attempting to act appropriately within the ambit of their authority.

The other thing — and I wouldn't normally do this, but I'm going to rise to it — is that the former government left a huge mess for Land and Water B.C. They left a huge mess — some 3,000 unresolved tenure issues, costing this province likely billions of dollars in new opportunities. LWBC, I think, moved quickly. They moved appropriately. They moved strongly to resolve those issues.

Let me say this as well. The auditor general reviewed the changes that Land and Water B.C. brought in, in 2001-02 to remedy the situation. He reviewed it at that time. He is reviewing it again. He has completed his preliminary second review. He is looking at some additional issues, and I'm sure we will hear from the auditor general one of these days about that. I am sure we will learn from it.

One of the things I hope he looks at as he conducts his review is a letter of March 31, 1998. This is from the former Minister of Environment, Cathy McGregor. I guess I can use her name in here now. Cathy McGregor in 1998 wrote this, and I'll quote for the record: "The provincial government is reviewing the salmon aquaculture report prepared by the environmental assess-

ment office and is considering options on how to proceed with the implementation of this report. Until this review is completed, the ministry is allowing fish farms to remain status quo. This includes allowing expired fish farm tenures to operate until a formal decision is made on the replacement applications."

What that means is the Minister of Environment, Cathy McGregor, in 1998, was advising that they were not going to do anything until they resolved those tenure issues. In fact — now this will astonish you, Mr. Chair — they didn't resolve them. They couldn't reach consensus in cabinet. They couldn't reach any kind of agreement. They did nothing. They let the aquaculture enterprises hang out to dry. They, along with 3,000 other unresolved tenures, were a situation that Land and Water B.C., composed of dedicated public servants — many of them, actually, who served the New Democratic Party in government as well as our own since 2001…. They have worked very hard to resolve the situation. I take great offence.

I think the member, perhaps, should save the intermission and apologize directly to Land and Water B.C. and the dedicated public servants there who have tried, I think, in a very dedicated way to clean up the mess that was created by her own government.

J. MacPhail: How ridiculous. The minister sounds like a fool — an absolute fool.

The Chair: Member, that's absolutely unparliamentary. I'd ask you to withdraw that statement.

The minister looks ridiculous. Here's why. The person I was quoting in describing the way the fines were returned is the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries in his estimates earlier this month. The minister, in his silly attempt to try to blame someone else for the improper return of fines, is actually doing a disservice to his cabinet colleague the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, who I was just quoting.

Hon. G. Abbott: I don't want to contribute any further to the unconstructive comments that were made here. Because I am such a constructive individual, Mr. Chair, I do want to add a further answer to the question the member posed earlier. I will get her even further detail on this question, which was around Crown land.

I just want to note that the highest number of Crown land sales that have ever occurred in the province occurred in 1993, which I think was part of the tenure of the former government — 1,272 Crown land sales in 1993 versus 369 last year. I should also note that it was in 1999….

Hon. G. Abbott: In 1999 the NDP government sold the largest amount of Crown land in the last 15 years — 16,763 hectares. Whether you're looking at it in terms of the number of sales or the volume of sales, the member can look at herself if she's looking for a conspiracy.

J. MacPhail: Actually, it was just a straightforward question. I would concur that there are very few people willing to invest in this province right now — very few people willing to invest in this province. It becomes even fewer people who want to invest year over year. I actually understand that.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 15, Sustainable Resource Management Statutes Amendment Act, 2004, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Committee of Supply A, having reported resolutions and progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I'm informed the Administrator is in the precinct, so would everyone please remain in their seats, and he will be here momentarily.

His Honour the Administrator entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Administrator doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to these acts.

V. Anderson: I'll just read a letter here from the Association of Neighbourhood Houses. They say that they were directed to contact your offices regarding the extension of their bingo affiliation certificate, which had been provided for a one-year period. They want assurance that they will have continuation of that certificate after that one-year period is finalized.

Hon. R. Coleman: If they got a one-year affiliation, that meant that something in their application was lacking, and they were probably meeting with the branch to try and solve whatever that was lacking in. If they get that settled, then they would receive a renewal of the affiliation, which would go for an extension of another two years. We're trying to do three-year bingo affiliations, revolving them every three years just so that we can keep track, obviously, of the societies — how they spend their money and the information.

If they haven't received the extension of their affiliation, the member should check and make sure they have applied for the extension — that they have provided the information the branch requested. If there's a difficulty, the member is welcome to contact the office, and we'll have the gaming branch sit down with the organization.

V. Anderson: I was in on a meeting a couple of years ago about the reorganization that was involved. It's a concern about the reorganization, so I'd be happy to meet with the minister about this.

P. Sahota: The dialogue on crime was postponed. I understand it was originally scheduled for January. I was wondering if it has been rescheduled.

Hon. R. Coleman: The dialogue on crime had a couple of notions or visions with regards to how it would roll out from my office. One was that we would start to engage opportunities at the community level with chambers of commerce, boards of trade and community groups and have some of the communities actually have dialogues in their own communities with regards to crime. A number of those have been taking place in places like Coquitlam and Vancouver and, I think, in Burnaby, as well as some places upcountry. I've spoken to — I don't know how many — maybe 20 chambers, a couple of boards of trade and other organizations with regards to it.

We also wanted to do a dialogue similar to other dialogues we've held at the Wosk Centre. It was originally scheduled so that we were going to try and do it around January 28, somewhere in there. Then, of course, there was a change of government at the federal level — at least, a change of Prime Minister and a new cabinet. A first ministers' conference was called for that date, so we actually had to cancel that date, although we were planning on going ahead at that point in time.

It hasn't been rescheduled, but it will be. It's now a question of: can we do the dialogue, and when would it be most effective? One of the challenges, of course, is that we anticipate there could be a federal election called, which would then affect the ability of when Members of Parliament — we wanted to engage them in the dialogue — from British Columbia would be able

to attend or would be in office. Two, who would be the federal justice minister we'd be dealing with — to have them come or send a representative? It is actually on hold, and we will pick a date as soon as we have that all sort of settled out and straightened away.

P. Sahota: That's good information. I know that people in my constituency are very much looking forward to passing that information on when that provincial dialogue on crime does happen.

Overall, I do want to talk a little bit about my city and my constituency, Burnaby. Overall, it's a safe place, but like any big city, it has some big city problems in terms of marijuana grow ops, the sex trade and a drug problem. There seems to be a huge sense of frustration, with constituents basically wondering and asking the question: is what we're doing working? My question to the minister would be that. I know we have a range of programs, services and new tools that we've put in the kit for the police agencies to deal with. In his opinion, does he believe what we're doing is working, and what more could we be doing?

Hon. R. Coleman: I think it's always a challenge in law enforcement when you're dealing with all issues in and around crime. Some things work, some things don't, and other things need to be backed up by other things. For instance, in the marijuana grow-operation side, where we do have a significant problem in British Columbia, they don't have the same significant problem in Washington State. There's a reason for that. In Washington State, penalties are higher. Their position on it is that they'll just keep raising the bar and their penalties so the business doesn't get done in their state. As far as they're concerned, they're comfortable that it happens in British Columbia.

We need to actually push back on that. We need some help from our federal drug prosecutors and the federal government with regards to penalties, with regards to issues in and around the drug trade — whether it be methamphetamines or marijuana or cocaine or the other issues around drugs. That part is part of the continuation of law enforcement. Law enforcement actually has integrated and created new teams and started to try and target arrests and take down the different types of operations, whether it be labs or marijuana grow ops and that sort of thing. They're actually having some success. The success at the other end isn't bearing fruit at this point in time, but because of the dialogue that's been taking place, even in this province, in the last year or so from community groups with regards to us talking about these things, for the first time the Provincial Court judges have come out and said they want to come out and engage in a conversation with communities as to how the justice system is or is not working for them.

These things are moving down the line. We thought we were going to get doubling of the penalties with regards to trafficking and those issues in the drug side of the Criminal Code side of this, this year, but there was a change in government. That initiative stopped when the new Prime Minister came in. The new justice minister hasn't brought it forward, so we don't know where that sits in the pipeline. We'll certainly bring it up again when we go to the next justice ministers' meeting.

We're going to do some other things as well. We've just received a report with regards to hydroponic growing equipment. There's a huge, disproportionate number of hydroponic sellers in British Columbia versus any other jurisdiction in Canada — particularly our two neighbouring jurisdictions, Alberta and Washington State. We're going to have to do some work to look at whether there's a way to regulate that, if necessary, or how we can track it. Certainly, it's obvious that that's one of the feeders into the system for the marijuana side.

In addition, we're going to look — as I said yesterday in the debates — at the civil forfeiture of the proceeds of crime, which we think is an important initiative. We're looking at legislation for that for this fall. That's in the pipeline now, getting the work done with this ministry and the Ministry of Revenue to see what we can accomplish there.

P. Sahota: My last question is around the issue of racism. Recently in the media, and there have been some incidents…. There was the incident with Kulwinder Parhar, the cabbie that was beaten in Burnaby. There was the issue — I think it was last week — with Nachhattar Basra, who was pulled over by the city of Vancouver police. It was mistaken identity.

The issue that I get asked, and people from my constituency ask, in terms of these types of incidents is in terms of training. What kind of training do RCMP officers, city police, have in terms of dealing with such a diverse population? I mean, in Burnaby 50 percent of the population is ethnic. What kind of training do the police have when it comes to different populations?

Hon. R. Coleman: They do diversity training now, both at the Justice Institute and the RCMP. There's ongoing in-service training with regards to those issues. I think you'll find the police really don't like it when they make a mistake with regards to anybody when they make an arrest. In that sort of situation, like what happened in Vancouver, they're obviously apologetic about it. I don't think it's related to race in that particular case. It's just that in that case, it was pretty close to age and description and name with regards to an outstanding warrant.

P. Wong: I would like to ask the minister…. In Vancouver the crime rate is deteriorating, I think. What remedy do you think can alleviate this situation in Vancouver?

Hon. R. Coleman: The Attorney General has launched a thing, mainly with his prosecution and ju-

dicial side that I think is called the safe streets strategy. They're looking at some of the issues with regards to how they can assist the street crime team, I think it is, or something like that. There's also this Safe Streets Coalition, which is doing work with us with regards to the Trespass Act and those types of things that we're looking at with regards to how we can deal with that.

As the member knows, we've taken some initiatives like PRIME, which is our information management system for policing. That's going to allow us to actually target our enforcement to where the crime is highest, because our statistical information will improve as we do that, and that's going to help us.

As we move forward, I think we have to do things like the meeting I was in this morning. We met with regards to one thing, which was crystal methamphetamine, where we actually had Health, Children and Family Development, mental health plus Solicitor General and Human Resources around the table saying: "Okay. What do we need to do to actually have solutions for people with addiction issues — a sobering centre, like they've just done in Victoria, in Vancouver so that we can have a place for these people to go when they come into custody with regards to their addictions and assistance?"

There are a number of things going on that I think are going to be positive as we move forward. At the same time, law enforcement is always continuing to try and improve how they can deal with street crime.

P. Wong: There are a number of parents complaining in Vancouver-Kensington about prostitutes standing in the neighbourhood of schools. Is there any idea where we can set up a kind of bubble zone to prevent that from happening?

Hon. R. Coleman: We have a prostitution unit that deals with the street-level prostitution and the sex trade, and we work with community groups with regards to it. There are some solutions that we would, at different times, like to see ourselves be able to consider. There has been some representation, through the safe streets issues which are coming through our committee process, about the possibility of bubble zones and those types of things with regards to these issues. There is some work going on with regards to it, but nothing conclusive at this point in time.

J. MacPhail: I hope to be finished in an hour, so we can pace ourselves accordingly.

The Residential Tenancy Act. Can the minister outline for us the changes that he announced that took place January 1, 2004, regarding the Residential Tenancy Act?

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't know if the member wants me to walk through the whole thing. We brought in an entire new act as of January 1, with a whole new set of regulations. I guess the key issues in it…. I'll try and hit the highlights, and then we can go from there.

On damage deposits, as of January, if the landlord doesn't return the damage deposit within a set period of time, the damage deposit is doubled. That's a penalty for the landlord.

There's an inspection now on the going in and going out of a residential tenancy that's required. Failure to do that on the part of the landlord means automatic forfeiture of the damage deposit to the tenant.

There is the ability for a landlord to inspect their property once a month, and that's geared to illegal activity or at least them knowing the state of their property — more so probably geared to issues in and around illegal activity like grow ops.

There was a rent review, which is 2 percent plus CPI without arbitration. We split the conventional Residential Tenancy and Mobile Home Park Acts because the two tenancies really don't actually relate very well within each other's categories. The goal of this, obviously, is to have a better working relationship between landlords and tenants to achieve a balance as we move forward.

The act has actually been up and running for three months. We've seen a 20 percent reduction in our arbitrations in that period of time. We haven't had a substantial amount of consternation on either side. I did see that there was a public forum in Vancouver the other night and noted to myself that one of the speakers, who was from one of the tenants' rights groups, had been one of the people that actually had come to us to talk to us about some of the changes we made with regard to rent review — not having it retroactive, which we took out; to keep it economical, which we did, so that they couldn't go back three years; and to keep it economical within, at least, under 5 percent.

The other thing we're seeing in residential tenancies now is quite a change — and I think it's probably due to the housing market more than anything else — in that we actually have vacancy rates in most areas of the province, and in some cases we have massive vacancy rates, particularly in the Cariboo, in the north, where we have in some communities as high as a 20 percent, 30 percent vacancy rate. Even though we've allowed for some increases in rents without arbitration, they're just trying to hold on to their tenants right now, because they don't have the marketplace for that.

I guess that's the quick summary. I'd be glad to answer any of the specific questions by the member.

J. MacPhail: I might note that perhaps the reason why there's a drop in arbitration is because far fewer things can go to arbitration under the new Residential Tenancy Act. Here's the summary of changes that I've been provided with by the very group the minister talks about — who held a rally on Sunday. This information is obtained from that rally. I didn't attend it, but my colleague, the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, did. This is from the Tenants Rights Action Coalition.

I note that the minister said that there were people there who he had consulted. But I also note that in one media report the Tenants Rights Action Coalition actually was shocked that these changes were going ahead — because she had been under the understanding that the government was not going to head in this direction. She's quoted as saying that the changes are "back door loopholes the government has put in without any public consultation."

Here again, I'm quoting from a December 19, 2003, article in the Province by Adrienne Tanner. Linda Mix, executive director of TRAC, said:

This letter that I will read into the record sums up the issues faced by tenants who attended that rally against the changes to the Residential Tenancy Act on March 28. I'll read it into the record. These are the issues I wish to discuss with the Solicitor General. The letter is actually from a constituent of the MLA for Vancouver-Burrard. It's from Stephen Hammond, who is the housing chair of the West End Residents Association.

Oh, well, I'll read this. These are not my words, and I don't in any way hold to them, but it is what Mr. Hammond is saying.

That was widely endorsed by…. I think there were hundreds from the West End at the rally on March 28. But I also know these concerns are reflected in my riding, Vancouver-Hastings, as well, and also, I would expect, amongst all of the constituencies in Vancouver and in the lower mainland.

Hon. R. Coleman: What I'll do is get a copy of the letter from the member for Vancouver-Burrard so we can also respond directly to the individual that wrote it. I'll try and deal with some of the issues in there, and I will deal with a couple of the issues that have been brought up by the member in her discussion.

First of all, when we debated the act last spring, we talked about the percentage plus inflation. That was no surprise to anybody, because we debated it in the act. We then brought in some amendments to the act last fall, after consulting with both the landlord and the tenant groups. One of them was…. It seemed to me in the one article that it almost sounded like they were saying the three-year retroactivity still existed. It doesn't. We took that out last fall before we did the regulations. We brought in legislation to do that because we had had feedback from people in the industry.

It's also striking to me that…. People have to understand that a building — an apartment building, a house or whatever — has to have some ongoing maintenance on it. You need to allow the person who has made the investment to actually provide the rental housing the opportunity to get a return on their rent to the level that they can maintain the building.

One of the issues that was brought to us by some tenant groups as we went through this…. Of course today, now that the act's in place and there's actually a 2-percent-plus-inflation rent increase that's allowed without arbitration, we'll forget these discussions. But the fact of the matter was that we had buildings that were deteriorating. We had buildings in jurisdictions where — because of the onerous arbitration system that was in place and the onerous system to actually have a landlord go ask for a rent increase and all the information and everything they had to provide — what was happening was no maintenance was taking place in these buildings. They were deteriorating. We were actually starting to see rental stock in some jurisdictions where people were just saying: "I'll let it go down. Then I'll tear it down. Then I'll redevelop it." And we'll lose the rental stock forever.

There has to be a balance, where there is some ability for a little bit of a return to the people that are actually carrying the investment and the mortgage and the maintenance and all the rest of it. And that's all this was: to try and get a minimum level which could be fair to everybody.

You know, it's interesting, because I've also heard from a number of landlord groups that I didn't go far enough, that I didn't go high enough, that we should have done more and that we sold them out. And then we hear from tenant groups that say we sold them out.

Some people would have the argument: "Why don't you just let the market decide this and just take off any control of rent at all?" We did have those discussions as we went through it. We even discussed a little bit during the legislation. The decision was made not to do that, and that was because of consultation with groups like the Tenants Rights Action Coalition and what have you. We said we wanted to find a middle-of-the-road balance.

The geographic issue with regards to the way they've couched it — that you can just go out tomorrow and compare a building and you're going to get a big rent increase…. That's not as easy as it sounds. First of all, we're talking about comparable age, comparable design and comparable size of units. All of those things would have to be taken into account by an arbitrator, and frankly, I don't know if there's actually been an application done for that. I will check and find out for the hon. member whether there has been.

In speaking with landlord groups recently…. I attended two meetings of theirs with regards to some of their AGMs. They think that they've actually got a better working relationship with their tenants than they've ever had because of the fact that they are dealing with them in a more businesslike manner than maybe the previous regime of acts, which have been amended and changed over probably a 15- to 20-year period, were working for anybody.

I get the issues, frankly. I will certainly talk to the Tenants Rights Action Coalition and ask them to give me a list of any unscrupulous landlords that are taking advantage of tenants with regards to signing away their rights. I will actually advise the landlord and tenant groups that if we find that happening, well, we're going to have to deal with it. The one thing we're not going to accept is unscrupulous landlords. We're also not going to accept unscrupulous practices on behalf of tenants either. I mean, I think there has to be a reasonable relationship between the landlord and tenant when we're doing these sorts of things.

If there is a pattern developing that I haven't heard of, until the member has mentioned that they can do this, I'd like to see some actual people doing it. We do

have in this province a couple of landlords that have been identified to me over the last year or so that, frankly…. One of them woke up and had quite a surprise, because they've had a tradition of basically not doing damage deposits back. They're not in Vancouver. They woke up and found out that they were now paying double for the ones they didn't turn back. They've actually had to change their practices. There are a couple of others, though. There is one other that we are certainly looking at with regards to referring it to a consumer investigation.

I advised the industry when I spoke to them that the one thing we weren't going to tolerate was that, and they are actually in favour of that. They've offered government, at different times in the past, to even help pay for investigations with regards to unscrupulous landlords, because they want their industry to have a decent reputation.

I think that there's a balance. I actually do think we struck a balance in this legislation. We're also aware of the fact that it's only been out there for three months with the regulations, and it wasn't snuck through on a Friday afternoon. The regulations were part of what was in the legislation and in the debates.

We will monitor the act. The one thing we've always said is if there is something that we see that is glaring that is causing a problem, we're going to go have a look at it.

J. MacPhail: What process is the minister setting up to get feedback from the Tenants Rights Action Coalition? Is there a monitoring group?

Hon. R. Coleman: They have regular conversations and discussions with the policy branch with regards to residential tenancy. The one I talked about with the damage deposit who we think is being unscrupulous — we've actually contacted them to ask if there are any other examples as we move forward to try and maybe deal with these in a bunch, if there are others. We're in conversation with them — not me personally, but the branch. That's how we do that consultation on the policy side. There's always been a pretty open-door-conversation relationship with that branch of government.

J. MacPhail: I'm wondering why renters in mobile homes get treated differently than renters in apartments. My understanding is that the act that covers rental accommodation in mobile homes…. Owners of trailer parks can now increase rents by only the rate of inflation, whereas we've already discussed that owners of rental units can boost rents by the inflation rate plus 2 percent. Why the different treatment?

Hon. R. Coleman: For a couple of reasons. One is that the owner of the park is just renting land and it's not a fixed asset that requires maintenance and upgrade and issues with regards to paint, roofs, windows and heat. He's not actually paying utilities in some cases. Landlords are actually paying utilities, so the inflationary side affects them a lot differently on a residential tenancy than on a mobile home park tenancy.

The other thing is that in areas where there are vacancies and what have you, a person can move more easily from a residential tenancy than they can from a mobile home park. There are no other parks out there. Municipalities have not recognized or woken up to the fact that this is actually an affordable alternative to housing and that they could do things like strata some land and put up some properties for people, particularly seniors.

I could tell you that we could deliver, if municipalities would ever wake up, some pretty affordable housing for seniors in those types of parks, if they would allow for the development. Even though the industry has tried to work with them, they have this mental block against them. If you're sitting in a place and it keeps going up, you can't actually move. You have nowhere to take your home, because the home is mobile. We decided not to allow…. We don't think we could justify — because they don't have a physical plant, just property — the 2 percent.

J. MacPhail: Far be it from me to challenge what the minister has just said in terms of the effects of inflation, but inflation is inflation. If somehow the minister is saying that mobile park owners have no upkeep on the basis of land, I expect they're going to come back and say he doesn't know what he's talking about.

The minister can't have it both ways. He's saying that there are fewer effects of inflation, yes, that the range upon which inflation has an effect in a mobile park is perhaps less, but there still are inflationary effects on the costs to those landlords. The costs can be passed on only according to what the costs are. It's the same with rental unit landlords. Inflation affects the costs proportionately. I just don't buy it. It doesn't make sense economically.

Is the minister monitoring the different effects between mobile home renters and rental unit tenants?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, we are. Again, we're probably going to end up just agreeing to disagree here. One guy rents the dirt. The other guy goes and buys a $2 million or $3 million building on a piece of dirt. He has to pay for all his inflationary costs like water, sewer, heat and light, depending on what his taxes do — all that — just like the guy who only has the dirt, and so the inflationary factor is there. In the meantime, with the guy that just has the mobile home park, for the most part his maintenance is very minimal, because most of the people take care of their own yards. There's not a grass-cutting issue here. There may be a community building on the property, but the tenants are usually the people that deal with the maintenance and renting of that out through a park committee.

It's a different type of investment, and that's why there's a difference between how we did that calculation. I can tell you that you're right. The landlords of mobile home parks are upset that it didn't go further

for them. They felt they should get a higher increase. In actual fact, we had to say no, because I could not justify it with that type of investment versus this one. That's why there are two different acts, and that's why I view them differently.

J. MacPhail: It will be interesting to see how the public views the Solicitor General's comments on both those matters. I'm sure the mobile park owners in the Okanagan would vehemently disagree with this minister and the way he describes the circumstances, and I'm sure that's the case in lower Vancouver Island as well. But hey, they're his words that can come back to haunt him.

Who in this government, given all the changes, is responsible for rental hikes to people in nursing homes or assisted-living units?

Hon. R. Coleman: Not here. I believe it's in the Ministry of Health or in Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. Yeah, it is CAWS.

I know there was a body of work being done, and I don't know what state it's at, with regards to that. It wasn't brought in to the Residential Tenancy Act because, as the member knows, there are a number of other services that are tied into the assisted living and those types of situations where there are things like meals and cleaning costs. They're almost like options you can buy when you're living in some of those facilities.

I think they're trying to come up with a way to do that, but I don't know what the status is. I haven't been involved in that situation, so I really probably shouldn't step too far down that road.

J. MacPhail: Well, I'll refer the questions to the…. We are in estimates for the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services, so I'll ask the questions there.

I'm going to go to AMBER alert and consumer issues. Just before we do that, I wonder: has the minister had a chance to have the chronology of the police complaint commissioner office related to the Frank Paul matter done, and can he produce it, please?

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't have it yet, hon. member. I will get it to you as soon as we have it. I do believe the police complaint commissioner is on holidays this week, so the offices are trying…. I understand we're trying to get that together. I don't know the status of that at this point, but I know we don't have it yet. As soon as we do have it, we will get it to the member.

J. MacPhail: What's the status of the AMBER alert system being put in place in British Columbia?

Hon. R. Coleman: The member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine asked me this question yesterday, I think, or the day before. We're expecting to have AMBER alert up and running in B.C. by April 30. We have a committee that's been working on it. We've forwarded some funds and put a contractor on the file to make sure that they meet the deadline to achieve AMBER alert by the end of April.

Hon. R. Coleman: It's being done through police services division. It's $20,000 to $30,000, I think, that we anticipate the costs to be for the contractor to do the work with the organization. They will be setting up a non-profit society so that they can also receive donations in kind. The actual operation of AMBER alert is not an expensive issue. It's really cooperation between levels of media, community communications and police communications.

The issues we would have, the stuff we would be able to put together in the case of a missing child — we actually do most of that stuff in B.C. already. This is more labelling it and bringing in the next level, with the media and E-Comm and our police to make it so that it raises the awareness, I guess you could say, of what an alert is. If we label it with the AMBER alert, market the name and market the relationship, then people, when they hear it, will obviously listen differently than they would if we just did our normal outreach.

We'll actually be able to do better than most jurisdictions as we roll out PRIME-BC. In addition to what would be the normal AMBER alert and communication, at some point in time — probably within about 12 months — every police car in B.C. would be able to get the alert within seconds, because we would be able to send it out through our PRIME system.

There was a good group of volunteers that were working on it. They had some concerns that they were not getting at because people just had some different ideas around the table. That's why we brought in the contractor to basically pull it all together and finalize it for them.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'll get the member the list of the names of the people. We have people from community groups, some people that have been involved in radio and television, the Vancouver police department, other municipal departments — I believe Delta police department has somebody on there — the RCMP, E-Comm and a representative from police services. We will get you the structure of the committee, if you wish.

J. MacPhail: Has the minister already described the reason why this is delayed? Are there any…? He described the situation in terms of it being a coordinating effort, but what's going to change between now and April 30 where the coordinating effort is going to gel? Or are there other matters affecting the delay?

Hon. R. Coleman: Sometimes when you get large groups of people or committees of people that have a

round table, they have different ideas of how to implement. They really needed, and they advised us that they needed, somebody that could come in and basically project-manage this thing through to the end — the time lines, the workplan, the implementation plan — which is what our contractor through police services is doing for these folks.

The AMBER alert committee is made up of representatives from the RCMP, Vancouver police, Canada Customs, E-Comm, radio, TV, Child Find B.C. and the Children's Foundation. They have agreed to an implementation strategy to get it done by April 30, and the reason…. I mean, as a minister I wanted to see it implemented as soon as possible. There was some concern that they needed somebody that was focusing full-time on the project, because the rest of these folks around the table were volunteers. We said yes, we would provide the resources to make that happen, and that's what we've done.

J. MacPhail: I'm moving to some consumer issues. Basically, my question is the status of having royal assent for Bill 2, Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act; Bill 3, Cremation, Interment and Funeral Services Act; and Bill 4, Business Practices and Consumer Protection Authority Act, because the Government House Leader was out commenting that at least part of that package won't be proclaimed.

Hon. R. Coleman: That's correct. I expect that at the least Bill 4 would be proclaimed today. Bill 3 is being held pending the fixing of the concern the member brought to the House relative to the definition of "spouse." Some work is being done on that to deal with the issue. We thought it was actually simple to deal with, but it turns out there are five or six different definitions in various legislations in the province. With regard to the definitions, the Attorney General is doing some work on that, so the funeral home and crematorium side will not come forward until such time as that has been dealt with.

J. MacPhail: I just want to reiterate points I made in debate in the Legislature around the legislation. I have since heard from death care companies and operators that they are still very concerned about the lack of consultation in terms of the changes to their legislation, Bill 3, the Cremation, Interment and Funeral Services Act. We will be monitoring the implementation of those changes very carefully. They basically said to me that the cost to the consumer will rise. The death care business will have no choice but to pass on the increased consumer costs as a result of the legislation.

I want to give two examples of consumer issues that were brought to our attention and ask the minister how they will be dealt with under the new system. One is concern about Impark's debt-collection tactics, including calling people late at night with automated phone systems. That's occurring here in British Columbia. It's an issue that made the media in Alberta, and actually, the Klein government rescinded the company's access to vehicle registry info.

The second one — these are just examples I want to bring forward to see what the new system will do — is Terasen Gas. There are accusations to the Solicitor General in letters that Terasen Gas's infringement of privacy continues — that the company is using reverse onus: "Unless we hear from you, we will assume you wish Terasen Gas to continue to collect, use and disclose your personal information." How will these matters be held under the new system?

Hon. R. Coleman: The Impark one isn't a consumer protection issue. It's actually to deal with the information and how we're giving them information from ICBC. I'm actually looking at that because I'm not very happy with Impark with regard to how they have been performing, particularly how they will ticket a vehicle two or three times, so then they have a record of that, and then tow the vehicle.

Now, I have a concern about a towing of a vehicle from, for instance, a college parking lot where students are in on a late-night course. A young person comes out, and their vehicle has been towed for parking tickets. We have a couple of these issues in front of us now — and that's why I've asked that we sit down with Impark — where they say: "I didn't know I had the tickets." The vehicle is gone, and now you have people who have to get home. I have a concern about how that whole tactic and their powers are concerned, so I've asked that we take a look at the entire package, which includes whether we'll continue to have a relationship whereby we provide information on licence plate numbers to Impark.

We haven't had the opportunity to sit down and talk to them yet, because I've only just had a number of these come to me. I had told my staff I wanted to have the opportunity to sit down with the Insurance Corporation, who have provided me with a briefing note about the revenue expectations or the revenues we receive off that. Frankly, the corporation doesn't appear to want to continue that relationship either. We'll sit down with the corporation first, then we'll bring in the parking companies, and we'll try and deal with that issue.

The second one is the consumer issue, which is the collections. We're dealing with that on a complaint basis now. Those are being looked into. Frankly, I find it rather disturbing that people are getting phone calls at midnight and 1 o'clock in the morning. They tell us they've fixed that problem. I haven't heard of any recent complaints on it, but I do know a number of people that had those types of calls. It's not acceptable that there would be that type of harassment. That's a consumer-driven issue. If it's under investigation today, it will continue to be dealt with by the new authority as an investigation for consumer issues.

The Terasen Gas one — I read about that the other day. I haven't had any complaint brought to me, but I'll assure the member we'll be looking into it.

J. MacPhail: I had some feedback from the public about the Solicitor General's and my discussion around victim services. They were dismayed that I let the minister off the hook so easily, so I need to go back and point to budget lines and ask him for justification of his remarks that victim services programs have not been cut from his budget.

In the supplemental estimates, vote 31, it has, under "Policing and Community Safety," that victim services and community programs for the '03-04 budget are $26.134 million and that '04-05 victim services and community programs are $23.033 million. The minister said there are 24 new victim programs or 153 victim services programs, but with the budget cut, the people who called in to me say that programs are less effective with less money going into them.

Could he tell me exactly how much money in his budget went into victim services in '03-04 and how much is going in, in '04-05?

Hon. R. Coleman: There are two programs, first of all. Let's understand that. There's $9.4 million that goes into 153 victim services programs in British Columbia. Those are the police-based programs and the victim-based programs for specialized victim services. Those are the ones I told the member were not cut. In actual fact, it was $9.3 million when I became the minister. It's $9.4 million today.

That package is where you have an incident like a suicide in a community, and the police go to the suicide, and they bring in the volunteer victims person that comes in and sits with the family, spends the time, whether it be a fatal accident…. They're the ones that'll go and work with the volunteers and the employed staff to go to schools when we come in with regard to issues where there's been a death and that sort of stuff. These are the community-based and the police-based victims programs. They have not been cut. It's the same number as always.

The second one. If the member recalls, we changed the Criminal Injury Compensation Act a few years back, when we brought in the Crime Victim Assistance Act The crime victim assistance program is a benefit program. People who are victims of crime can apply for things like counselling, loss of wages, transportation and those sorts of things. They make applications to the program.

Last year we spent about $8.8 million in direct benefits to victims under that side of the program. There is a fund that sits there that gets used up based on applications and gets replenished from another source. I can't remember the source. It's either something to do with fine revenue and a combination of ministry funding…. Those are the two programs.

In addition to that, we've identified a risk we think is out there with regard to the one investigation we're dealing with where we think we're going to have to expand the normal victims assistance. It's the Coquitlam investigation, the project you've been handed, and we referred to it. Some of the more recent developments that I discussed with the member a while back may expand the scope of who is affected emotionally and psychologically as a result of this investigation. We've identified that as a separate item that we may have to be able to fund with regard to additional victims issues.

J. MacPhail: The people also said: where can we get a list of the 153 victim services programs? Where can we go to find out what these programs are — all 153?

Hon. R. Coleman: We think it should be on the Net, but if it isn't, we'll put it on the Net. I have a list of them. They're everywhere from 100 Mile to Ashcroft, Bella Coola, Burnaby, Burns Lake, Chetwynd, Chilliwack.… I can provide the list to the member, and I will undertake with the member that if it isn't on the website, we will put it up on the website. We'll also tell you on the website what the annual funding from government is, if it isn't there, because each one's a bit different.

Some municipalities match the funding, and some don't. It used to be a rule that we wouldn't do a police-based victims program if the municipality wasn't matching dollar for dollar. We changed that when I revamped victims programs, because we wanted to get the impetus into the community for these programs. I'm happy to ensure that's provided by getting it on the Net, and I can get you a copy, if you like.

So what is the cut then? Where is the $3 million cut coming from, in victim services and community programs, from last year's budget to this one starting tomorrow?

Hon. R. Coleman: The biggest impact was the change from the criminal injury compensation side to the crime victims assistance side, because we used to pay for — if the member recalls — pain and suffering. Pain and suffering was, if I recall, about 40 percent of the total money that was being spent. The average claim was being received after about two years of having to go through a process. We debated this in the House, if you recall, where you actually had people go through tribunals and what have you to get an average of about $2,500.

We were also spending $4 million a year plus administration with the Workers Compensation Board, so we brought that in. Those are the savings reflected in this area of the ministry with regard to the Criminal Injury Compensation Act, the crime victim assistance program benefits, versus paying pain and suffering — the administrative savings, issues on how we've handed the capital with regard to the staffing there, etc. The program is there, and it's application-based. If the applications go up, we fund the additional victims claims. If somebody has a loss of wages as a victim of crime or needs counselling or whatever, they can apply.

I'm told by victims groups…. I was in a meeting recently with a number of groups in Vancouver, including a number of the cultural community groups. At the end of the meeting two of them came up to me and congratulated me on the change on the crime victim assistance side, because they think it's more applied to the people that actually need the help sooner. They thought the process was working a lot better and a lot more quickly. It's one of those things, where on that side of it, like I said, we have the first description.

I'm going to give the list to the member and make sure it's on the Web. All the forms for this application with regard to victims' programs for assistance are on the website, and they can access them there. If the member actually ever does come across…. I encourage anybody, a person that has been a victim of crime and is having difficulty with assistance from crime victim assistance…. We'd like to hear that so that we can put our counsellors in touch with them as soon as possible.

J. MacPhail: There was a March 2004 information package — I actually downloaded the whole thing — from this minister called community accountability programs. In 1997 the previous government launched restorative justice programs. What's new? Is this about restorative justice that started in '97, and what's new about it?

Hon. R. Coleman: My understanding is that that's just a policy update and that nothing has really changed. We still provide the $5,000 startup fund and the $2,500-a-year grant for restorative justice–type programs.

J. MacPhail: That concludes my questions. Thank you to the Solicitor General and his staff. I do want the Solicitor General to know that I am going to be pursuing vigorously the information he promised me during estimates.

I must say, Mr. Chair, I am going to be pursuing vigorously the matter of Frank Paul. Last evening I re-read some of the testimony concerning the death of Frank Paul that arose from the legislative committee to investigate the police complaint commissioner and to appoint a new police complaints commissioner. The evidence presented around the Frank Joseph Paul death is chilling, so I will be pursuing it vigorously to ensure that there is a public enquiry.

Hon. R. Coleman: Although the vote has passed, I do want to say thank you to my staff, who have sat through a longer estimates than they did last year and, frankly, have been very supportive and very helpful. I actually do believe — and I will say this on the public record — that they are people that work in what I think is one of the most progressive ministries of government. They are very responsive and forward-thinking. That's the reason that I think there's a lot more respect within the community for the issues that touch on this ministry.

Hon. T. Christensen: I am going to make a bit of an opening statement just to try and cover off some of the highlights within the Ministry of Education, and there are quite a few. I'm certainly pleased to present the 2004-05 budget estimates for the Ministry of Education.

I should take a moment to introduce the staff that I have here, who certainly very ably assist me. I have the deputy minister, Emery Dosdall, to my right, as well as Keith Miller, who's the director of funding. Behind me to my left is Rick Davis, who is the superintendent liaison, and to my right is Ruth Wittenberg, who is an ADM in management services.

Madam Chair, to ensure B.C. students receive a quality education, our government is continuing our focus on five key areas. Certainly, we are committed to increasing education funding. We are committed to a more accountable education system. We're committed to more choice for students as well as more opportunities for parents to become involved in their child's education, recognizing that parental involvement works hand in hand with the great work of teachers around the province to ensure that our students achieve their best. Above all else, as has been said on many occasions, the government's number one priority is to improve student achievement. What we find, in fact, is that student achievement does continue to improve.

We all know that education is the best possible investment we can make for the future of our province, and our government is committed to increasing education funding. Balanced Budget 2004 sets us on a course of increased funding in the K-to-12 education budget by adding an additional $313 million to the Ministry of Education budget over the next three years. We will see the ministry's budget increase from $4.86 billion in 2003-04 to almost $5.2 billion in '06-07. I think that investment in public education is certainly a clear indication of the government placing a priority on our public education system. Obviously, $5.2 billion is an amount of money that it's difficult for any of us to really comprehend, but it shows a very significant commitment to

funding education appropriately. In this immediate year that we're entering, the 2004-05 budget year, the ministry's budget is being increased by $83 million, to a total of $4.94 billion — this at a time when we're projecting a decline in enrolment of about 8,500 students.

I do want to comment just briefly on one of the complexities, perhaps, and something that creates a bit of confusion in terms of education and funding. That is that the Ministry of Education's budget works on the government's fiscal year, which runs, as all members of the House know, from April 1 to March 31. School district budget years actually run from July 1 to the following June 30, so in fact, for the upcoming school budget year we're increasing the funding that we provide to school districts by $85 million, $50 million of that in terms of an allocation to the general operating funds that go to school districts and another $35 million that will be dedicated to assist school districts in the move to generally accepted accounting principles, which is finally coming, after a long series of recommendations by the auditor general.

Certainly, in terms of the increased funding, our government has fulfilled and surpassed our new-era commitment to maintain funding for education. We seem to spend a lot of time, when we talk about education, talking about dollars. Really, what becomes important is where those dollars are being invested. We're investing our efforts and our funding to ensure that we improve student achievement, and we're encouraging all school districts to focus their energy and their resources on what makes a difference to improve student achievement.

It's paying off. As I've travelled to a number of school districts in the nine or so weeks that I've had the privilege of being minister, what I'm hearing from those districts is that yes, they have challenges, as would be expected. But they are telling me that the ministry's focus on accountability — its focus on both school accountability and district accountability through the school planning councils, through school plans and through accountability contracts — has really encouraged a very specific focus within districts on what it is they are doing to improve student achievement and how they can improve upon their record while recognizing what they're doing well and where some additional work needs to be done. They comment to me — superintendents in particular — that it has been very helpful to see that push down from the Ministry of Education that we do want them to focus on student achievement. In fact, this last year a record 79 percent of students completed high school, which is up from 77 percent in 2001-02.

There are a number of other indicators in terms of achievement that I do want to just comment on briefly. Certainly, the 2003 foundation skills assessment indicates that male-female aboriginal, English-as-a-second-language and French immersion students in almost all grades had higher test scores in math compared with the previous year. We know that 84 percent of grade 7 students are meeting or exceeding expectations for math. That's an increase of 2 percent for 2002. I think we can all recognize that as you get into the 80 to 90 percent range, it gets incrementally tougher to continue to improve, but certainly that further 2 percent increase is impressive.

Ninety-four percent of grade 4 students are meeting or exceeding expectations for writing. That's up from 91 percent in 2001. Seventy-four percent of grade 10 students are meeting or exceeding expectations in reading, compared with 71 percent in 2002. More than half the students who wrote exams in geography 12, French 12, chemistry 12 and principles of mathematics 12 received an A or B letter grade.

I certainly won't continue all the indicators of how achievement is improving, but suffice to say that the indicators clearly show that students continue to do better in our schools. That is thanks to a focus by the ministry on ensuring districts are focusing on improving student achievement. But at the end of all of the discussion, it's a credit to the teachers working in our schools and to parents supporting teachers and their students in continuing to do better in school.

We're also seeing improvement in some of the populations that we've had good reason to be concerned about. Top among that list are certainly our aboriginal students. I think it's fair to say that historically the education system has failed our aboriginal students. Our aboriginal students clearly do not graduate or complete high school near the same rates as our non-aboriginal population, but the trend is encouraging. The results for aboriginal students are increasing significantly, and we are narrowing that gap between aboriginal and non-aboriginal students.

Again, a good deal of work is being done by the Ministry of Education to encourage school districts to enter into aboriginal enhancement agreements with the first nations that those school districts serve. We are finding that by cementing that relationship between first nations and their local school districts, it allows all of them to work together towards the common goal that they certainly all agree on, which is improving the outcomes for aboriginal students.

We are very much working towards having aboriginal enhancement agreements in progress in all districts by 2005. We are continuing, certainly from a funding perspective, to provide additional funding for each aboriginal student, for a total of approximately $44 million annually.

On a number of fronts…. This, really, is in follow-up to some of the recommendations and initiatives that have gone on for the last couple of years. Certainly, we've had a task force on student achievement that made a number of recommendations. I've talked about what's happening in student achievement. We also had a rural schools task force that looked at some of the pressures facing our rural population in particular when it came to serving the needs of rural students.

This year we'll provide a supplemental grant of about $136 million to address the additional challenges of delivering education in some of the more isolated areas in the province, of which all of us know there are

many. We've also begun just this spring to proceed with Internet upgrades at 154 schools throughout the more rural areas of the province in an arrangement with Telus. That leaves about 150 others that we still need to work toward providing high-speed Internet access to, and we're hoping to have that completed by March of 2005.

To put that in perspective, I should comment on the school I was fortunate to visit up in Hixon, south of Prince George, to make the announcement in terms of extending high-speed Internet access and what it really means in the classroom. I think all of us who live in relatively urban areas of the province take high-speed Internet access for granted. Certainly, here in the Legislature we take it for granted every day in terms of the access that gives us to information and to the outside world.

In Hixon, which is a small school of about 54 or 55 students, an elementary school about 25 kilometres south of Prince George, what gaining high-speed Internet access meant to them was that they could actually now use the Internet at all. When they had slow speed, it just didn't work. A couple of the students were telling me they tried to do a report on owls a year ago, and they'd sit there for 20 minutes waiting for the information to come in.

All of us who've sat in front of a computer terminal waiting for something to download recognize how frustrating that can be, and from a student's perspective, they're just not going to do it. What the high-speed Internet access does is that it actually brings the outside world to many of those students, and it really does allow them a greater range of resources to improve their achievement in school.

A further initiative that was focused on a bit in the throne speech this year is our government's desire for British Columbia to be recognized as the most literate location in North America by 2010. Through this year we certainly will be launching a major new initiative to foster literacy in British Columbia. Again, those of us who are literate for the most part take it for granted, and we don't recognize the disadvantage that poor literacy places upon certain members of our society. I think we can all agree that improving literacy skills amongst our whole population, regardless of age, has to be a key initiative for government if all of our citizens are going to have the opportunity to participate in life fully.

Certainly, within the education system — the K-to-12 sector that this ministry is responsible for — we are very much focusing on literacy. I am very pleased that all of the school districts in the province have indicated a focus on early literacy in their accountability contracts and that different things are being tried in different districts with a great deal of success.

I was at an evening in New Westminster, school district 40, a couple of evenings ago, where they're developing a program called SMART Reading. They're very much involving parents, and they had an evening forum where there were about 300 parents there to learn how they could assist their children in gaining literacy skills quickly.

That cooperation between the school district and giving parents the tools to assist their own children really does bode well for the future in terms of those children's ability to gain literacy skills quickly and effectively and to set them on a proper course for the remainder of their learning as they proceed through their school years.

This year, of course, we're introducing new graduation requirements that will be phased in over three years. That will start with the class that's entering grade 10 this coming September 2004. The expectation there is that the new graduation requirements will make education more relevant to students' interests and goals and ensure that today's students are prepared to enter the workforce, take trades training or attend university.

It will certainly maintain a focus on a number of core subjects that it's important all students have a proven ability in to function in today's society, but it does allow school districts and individual schools considerably more autonomy in developing local courses that reflect the needs of their community and of the students they serve. A great deal of work has been done within the ministry over the course of the last year to get that ready to go, and we're all looking forward to that coming into place in September of 2004.

A further initiative that the public has shown a great deal of interest in and that we are moving forward with is work around ensuring that we have healthy schools. We know the research shows that students who get regular physical exercise do better in school. It's not only good for your health, but it is actually good for your learning.

Starting this September, students will be required to engage in physical activity for a prescribed amount of time each week. We will also be developing physical education performance standards to ensure that it's clear to school districts what is expected in terms of promoting physical activity among students and ensuring that those students get an appreciation of the role that physical activity can play in making their lives better.

A couple of weeks ago, Madam Chair, you may recall that the Premier announced new provincial standards to guide B.C. schools in developing codes of conduct to improve student safety. These standards are in response to the MLA task force on student safety and bullying that was completed last fall.

A great deal of very good work was done by the chair, the member for Vancouver-Burrard, who was joined on that committee by the MLA for Columbia River–Revelstoke and the MLA for Surrey–Green Timbers. They have made a number of very strong recommendations after visiting a number of communities and meeting with students, parents, teachers and others who have a keen interest in the public education system around the province.

We were happy to be able to respond to that this spring with the development of standards of conduct

and encouragement to school districts that we expect them, on a school-by-school basis, to develop codes of conduct and put in place the measures necessary to ensure they're focusing on student safety.

The reality is, as that task force found out, that there's a broad range of initiatives going on in schools around the province and some very good work. These aren't new initiatives. For a long period of time, different schools have done different things to try and ensure that students feel safe and comfortable when they attend school.

Part of the government's efforts in this regard is to ensure that that information is available to schools and that we're encouraging them to focus on looking at the information available, so they can think about safety in their own schools and find the tools necessary to make sure that all students who attend school do so without trepidation about their safety while they're there.

Parental involvement continues to be a focus. It is a cornerstone of our education system. Certainly, every parent who has a child in the education system knows that, number one, and trusts their child to this wonderful education system. I'm certainly starting that this year, having a son in kindergarten and having to go in on day one and drop him off and wonder what is going to happen to him in the system.

I think all parents can have a great deal of confidence that when they send their children to school in this province, they are being treated in a golden fashion. They are subjected to a dedicated group of teachers who are working hard to provide a strong learning environment to those students and to ensure that they leave there very much having benefited from a strong public education.

We've guaranteed the right of parents to volunteer in their child's school. We're giving parents a greater role in providing some direction, through involvement on school planning councils, on how a school runs. These are new initiatives in the last couple of years, and as I indicated earlier, the feedback that I'm getting as a new minister — when I'm out speaking with parents, school districts, principals and teachers around the province — is that the school planning councils are working very well.

It has certainly given parents who sit on those school planning councils an appreciation of the great many factors that come into play in the operation of a school, and it has given all participants on the school planning councils a great appreciation of the different skills and information sets they bring to the table in terms of what they expect from a school and how to improve the outcomes for students in that school.

We have amended the School Act to allow for open boundaries in schools. That has resulted in over 40 choice programs now being available in B.C. school districts. For years parents have been saying: "We want a broader range of choices for our children. We want locally relevant courses." The changes we have introduced have allowed that to happen.

I know in my own school district — I'm most familiar with school district 22 — this last year we saw the addition of a late French immersion course, something that a number of parents had been calling for, for a number of years. We've had a very successful early French immersion program for a number of years. We also saw the introduction of a Montessori program at Alexis Park Elementary School. The indications so far are that parents have embraced that program — the people involved in the program absolutely rave about it — and that it is serving very well a group of students in my school district.

We're seeing similar types of programs and similar innovations in school districts around the province as they respond to what parents are telling them they feel would most benefit their students. Certainly, there are great things happening in school districts around the province.

In conclusion, we've been in government just under three years now. During that time we've introduced several major education reforms aimed at improving student achievement. Certainly, the focus on accountability is key to that. The focus on adding dollars within a strong fiscal framework for the province is key to that, the focus on involving parents has been key to that, and the focus on providing more choice to students has been key to that. We are seeing results as student achievement continues to improve and improve significantly. We feel the evidence shows that student achievement, or our focus on student achievement, has inspired students to succeed like never before.

There is still a good deal of work to be done. When we look and see that our high school completion rate is still 79 percent, I'm not sure that's anything to trumpet. It's better than it's ever been, but that's 21 percent too low, as I think we can recognize. When you're dealing with that last 21 percent, the effort required is even greater. It does take some innovation by school districts and schools — and some hard work by all of us — to ensure that we're looking at what the needs of those students are and at how we ensure that we do bring that additional 21 percent along so that they are able to complete high school and are put on a strong footing to succeed as they go through life.

Our investments in our education system will further our vision of making our education system the best in Canada and, certainly, the best in the world. Much of the evidence indicates that we already are the best in Canada and the best in the world. That doesn't mean it's any time to rest. We will continue our efforts to build on that record of student achievement.

R. Masi: First of all, I would like to thank the Leader of the Opposition for making way for me to present my questions. Secondly, I would like to compliment the minister on such an excellent overview of the state of education in British Columbia. It was so well done that I have very few questions left to ask.

To begin with, I would like the minister to explore with me a bit on school planning councils. In fact, I wonder if there has been any research done on the effectiveness of the school planning councils in British Columbia at the present time.

Hon. T. Christensen: As the member may recognize, the introduction of school planning councils in British Columbia is a relatively recent phenomenon. We do know that the centre for excellence conducted a survey last year, which is sort of a benchmark starting point survey. They will be continuing their work, so we will be able to see, as we move forward and they continue their work, what the results are. From the anecdotal evidence coming back and, as I alluded to before, the comments that I'm receiving when I am in school districts and in individual schools, the evidence is pretty strong that they're finding it to be a very useful tool.

It's also, I think, worth noting that British Columbia is the only jurisdiction in Canada, at least, where school planning councils are actually participating in the development of school improvement plans. They're actually integrally involved in determining the direction of the school rather than simply being perhaps an advisory body. We think that's critical in terms of ensuring that they actually have a meaningful role in improving achievement in a particular school. I'm certainly looking forward to the work that the centre for excellence is doing so that we can have our anecdotal impressions reinforced.

R. Masi: I guess my concern here is that I often hear the statement that parental involvement has a direct effect on student achievement. I guess what I really…. Maybe I haven't made the connection yet, but what I fail to see is how a small committee of perhaps two or three parents can influence the achievement of a large secondary school — or something to that effect.

Hon. T. Christensen: The member brings up a very good point. I think it's a point that from time to time people have raised a concern about. That is, will a school planning council replace the parent advisory committee? Certainly, there's no intention of that happening. We have dedicated parents volunteering on PAC groups around the province that are working hard to provide advice and input to the operation of schools. The intent with school planning councils is very much that they are one more tool. But they're not intended to replace the influence that a PAC should feel welcome to provide — and that many PACs are providing — in terms of the schools.

As a government we're always looking for additional opportunities to involve parents. We're encouraging all school districts to look at how they can involve parents so that parents' views are known and are welcome in terms of how schools are functioning. That has a twofold benefit. It provides good advice and brings the skill sets of those parents into schools, but it also provides parents with a much greater level of comfort in terms of what's going on in the school they send their child to every day. It's really a two-way street, and we're doing all we can to encourage that cooperation between the school and the parents of the students the school serves.

R. Masi: I'm not sure how long the SPCs have been around. Are they in fact widespread? I mean, are they in all schools in all districts in British Columbia, or are there just pilot projects going on?

Hon. T. Christensen: The school planning councils were legislated into existence two years ago, so we've had them for two years. They're in every school in the province.

Given that it's the first couple of years, I'm sure that they're working better in some areas than in others. I think, hopefully, through some of the work that's being done by the centre for excellence, we'll be able to see that. It's certainly something, as we review accountability contracts and as the deputy minister or the superintendent liaison is in school districts, that they're discussing with the administration within districts on a continual basis to try and ensure that school planning councils are playing an effective role in providing a positive contribution to schools.

I think in the bigger context we're still in the relatively early days, given that it's just been two years. But the early indicators certainly are strong that they are a positive contribution to schools throughout the province.

There has been, as a reaction, unfortunately…. When they were first created, I understand that in some school districts the BCTF was encouraging teachers not to participate in the school planning councils. I think that's unfortunate. I think teachers have a very strong voice to provide at the school planning council table, and I think that's been borne out by the school planning councils that have strong teacher representation.

R. Masi: I know there's been quite a bit of discussion about community schools in the last while. I'm not going to get into the debate about whether it should be in the Children and Family Development ministry or the Education ministry. I have my own ideas on that. I just wonder how many districts actually have community schools in the province. How widespread is this?

Hon. T. Christensen: Where the community schools exist, that's actually a decision made at the school district level. They get the funding from the Ministry of Children and Family Development and then determine how to allocate that within different types of programs within the school. The Ministry of Children and Family Development may have a better breakdown of that, given that they get — it's my understanding — reports back from school districts as to how they're allocating those Community LINK funds. That's actually a district-made decision as to whether to allocate or designate a school within a district as a community school.

R. Masi: If the minister could explain: does the school district still designate a school as a community school? Or is it the Ministry of Children and Family Development that, in fact, just puts a program in?

Hon. T. Christensen: The Ministry of Education and, as far as I'm aware, the Ministry of Children and Family Development don't actually designate community schools. Certainly, our hope is that a school, rather than being labelled, is actually a focus of community in many parts of the province.

It's my understanding that in the seventies and eighties — and that's when I was actually in school — there were a number of schools developed around the concept of being a community school. I think what's happened in more recent years is that through the funding provided through MCFD, a particular school has been considered a community school on the basis of whether or not it had a community school coordinator, which is a funded staff position. That funding can come through the Community LINK program.

What I would certainly like to see as we move forward — and something we're giving some thought to within the ministry — is that schools need to be part of their community. Schools are more successful if they are part of the community that surrounds them. Some of that means there needs to be a change in attitudes. We need to find a means of encouraging that integration between a school and the community within which that school is located. Really, we need to work on what the factors are that make that happen, because in some cases, with the assistance of some of the funding through MCFD, that has helped that process along.

In other communities there's no question that it's not a funding issue. By virtue of the leadership that a principal has taken, perhaps, they've very much made it a focus point of the community in which it's located.

R. Masi: In the odd bit of reading that I've done in education, I see where the concept of school-based management is here and there throughout the continent in various places — Edmonton, Seattle, New York. I'm wondering if in British Columbia there are any districts today that in fact have adopted the administrative process of school-based management.

Hon. T. Christensen: School districts in Langley, Dawson Creek, Nelson and Prince George have moved towards a school-based management structure to the extent that they can. They're limited quite considerably in terms of going completely down that road because of collective agreement requirements between the district and a number of different staff groups. We have this last year done notional school funding to sort of look at the implications of that.

R. Masi: In terms of preapprenticeship programs and the articulation with school districts and community colleges, university colleges, etc., would you say that the programs are increasing? Is there a thrust towards pursuing this avenue, or are they sort of stationary in terms of the provincial scene?

Hon. T. Christensen: We've unfortunately seen a slight decline in the preapprenticeship-type programs. What we've done is certainly given school districts the autonomy to determine where they're focusing the resources and the types of programs they're developing. They've been limited and, I think, concerned somewhat by what the graduation requirements were previously, that those limited somewhat the number of students that were prepared to consider preapprenticeship programs.

We're confident that with moving to the new graduation requirements this fall and allowing for the development of more locally based courses within those graduation requirements, there will be much more flexibility and opportunity to develop preapprenticeship-type courses and for school districts to be providing students sort of a leg up on their post-secondary experience in skills training. That, I expect, certainly will be helped along by some of the work the Industry Training Authority is doing and within the ministry, or arm's length from the Ministry of Advanced Education, in terms of looking at different means of training the workers we need for certain skill sets.

We're also seeing a good deal of interest in areas like Fort Nelson and Fort St. John from companies like Duke Energy and EnCana that are obviously integrally involved in some of the oil and gas exploration and development up there to be partnering, to look at how we work on skills development at the high school level and what sort of opportunities can be provided there for students to really allow them to graduate from high school but also, perhaps, to gain an additional credential at the same time.

There's certainly no question that there's a great deal more that could be done on that front. I think all of us recognize, particularly as the provincial economy is now picking up, that the skills shortage that we've all heard about and talked about for the last number of years is actually starting to hit a critical point as the economy picks up, and industry is finding it just doesn't have, in some cases, the workers it needs. There's a good deal of work that can be done, and we're optimistic that, as we're moving forward, that's coming into place.

R. Masi: I'm a little dismayed that, in fact, the programs are in a slight decline in attendance. I think it is probably one of the tools that the minister could use in terms of looking after that 21 percent that is perhaps not completing high school. I would suggest this is an initiative that all of us should be aware of and supporting.

In terms of independent school funding, has there been any percentage change in terms of the amount of funds available to independent schools?

Hon. T. Christensen: There has been no change in the formula by which independent schools are funded. Depending on the category of independent school, they're funded at either 50 percent or lower per pupil of the base amount that we provide for students in the public school system.

Overall you'll see that the total dollars to independent schools have risen as their enrolments have risen,

because it is simply based on a formula that's been in existence for a number of years.

R. Masi: I would assume, then, that if the overall dollars are going up, the enrolment is going up in the independent schools system as well. Or is that a wrong assumption?

Hon. T. Christensen: Yes, the enrolment has been going up at independent schools, and that's been a consistent trend over the last good number of years. What I'm perhaps a little bit encouraged by is that, certainly, we're seeing the trend of that enrolment increase slow down a little bit compared to previous years. But there's no question that we've seen the enrolment in independent schools increase in the province. That's a consistent trend over, I think, the last 15 years or so.

R. Masi: In the past while, of course, we've heard a lot of talk about the College of Teachers in British Columbia. I wonder if the minister could tell me at the present time, or perhaps for the graduates that are coming on stream at the end of the year, who actually certifies the new teachers coming out from the universities?

Hon. T. Christensen: The College of Teachers is still the certification body for teachers graduating.

R. Masi: I've noticed in the parent-student-teacher surveys that have come out that there was a level of discomfort or concern with violence. There was also a level of concern about fitness. I wonder if the minister could in fact tell me or give me a comparison between the percentage concerns about violence in the school, or the feeling of bullying or anything like that, as opposed to the concern about fitness.

Hon. T. Christensen: Okay. The data we have from the satisfaction survey indicates the percent in terms of safety, which indicate that they feel safe at school many times or all the time. It's broken down, actually, between a number of different grades. If we look at parents, which I think the member's question alluded to — and this is 2002-03…. For elementary parents it looks like about 86 percent indicated that they felt their children were safe at school many times or all the time. That's a slight increase of perhaps a couple of percent over the previous year, '01-02. In secondary parents it's about 78-79 percent. That's unchanged from '01-02.

Then if you compare that to physical activity — and the question there was the percent that indicate that they get exercise many times or all the time — in terms of elementary parents, it was a little over 80 percent in '02-03, which is an increase of a little over 70 percent in '01-02. People are becoming more active — that's good news — or at least feel they're becoming more active. In terms of secondary parents it was about 59 percent in '02-03 and about 48 percent in '01-02.

That indicates, at least in general terms, that there's, I guess, a higher percentage that are saying they feel safe than saying they feel active. I think what's worth noting is that we're the only province in the country that is actually conducting these satisfaction surveys and getting this type of data in terms of what people are feeling about some of these initiatives or issues within the public school system.

Certainly, on the safety front I think there's no question that we all agree, and it's obvious, that students need to feel safe at school if they're actually going to learn while they're there. If they're thinking about their safety, they're not going to be in a mind-set that's going to allow them to learn. That's one of the driving forces around our guide Safe, Caring and Orderly Schools that was released just a couple of weeks ago by the Premier. We're encouraged by the reception that the guide has received and by the focus that schools appear to be prepared to put on school safety and ensuring that all their students feel safe so that they are in a state of mind that they can learn at their best.

As I indicated, I think, in my opening remarks on the physical activity front, we're expecting to move forward with performance standards for physical activity in the senior grades. We would be unique in the country, I believe, in doing that. That is a recognition that we need to be paying attention to these issues and ensuring that we're providing our students with that sort of foundation in some of these living factors that prepare them well for developing the good habits that will serve them well as they leave our high school system and proceed with their lives.

R. Masi: Just further to the question of the fitness standards in the secondary schools, I'm somewhat concerned about how the standards are implemented if in fact there is no physical education in grade 11 and 12 except for voluntary programs. I could combine another question with this as well. Will there be any change, in fact, to the compulsory side of physical education for, perhaps, grade 11? I am concerned about how these standards are measured if there is no program.

Hon. T. Christensen: When we conducted the graduation requirement review, one of the elements that was proposed was to look at making physical education in grades 11 and 12 mandatory. We received an extremely negative response to that, primarily from students and parents. There was strong encouragement from the medical community, but the response…. I think it actually did surprise us a bit in terms of how negative that response was.

Certainly, the tack we are taking in terms of physical education and ensuring students are physically

active is one of encouragement, of looking at physical activity performance standards and recognizing that we can do things in our lifestyle to become more physically active that don't necessarily mean being taken down to the gymnasium and having to run laps or…. I'm not sure what they do now. That's what we did.

Really, what we would like to end up with is that physical activity is something that becomes an integral part of your daily activity. It's not necessarily a situation of setting aside 45 minutes in the morning for hard exercise, but we can factor in physical activity throughout the day and look at means of doing that that do provide health benefits to students and ensure that students are learning how those things can be done moving ahead. It's more of a lifestyle type of promotion in some respects.

J. MacPhail: I want to just start off with a statement around accountability on the basis of which I'll be examining the estimates of the Ministry of Education.

The government has made the shift to GAAP — the generally accepted accounting principles — and with this change they now include the SUCH sector in their reporting entity. That includes health authorities, universities and school boards. As a result, the government now includes the assets, liabilities, revenue and expenses of health authorities in its own budget.

Since school boards are included in the reporting entity, I assume this Minister of Education is accountable right now in Committee of Supply for all of the questions that arise from that. The key budget language in the Budget and Fiscal Plan 2004/05-2006/07 states at page 51 that the public sector accounting board criteria clearly show that school districts, colleges and institutes and health care organizations are controlled by government and should therefore be included in the government reporting entity. That's the basis upon which I'll be proceeding.

We're going to start, as I guess we do every year in estimates, with funding. I'd like to start with the issue of the press release of March 15, 2004. It's the press release entitled: "District funding increased to support achievement." The release states: "As announced on January 30, operating funding for school districts in 2004-05 will increase by $85 million per year to $3.87 billion. The increase includes $35 million per year to help districts implement generally accepted accounting principles."

Let me just ask to start off: does the $3.87 billion represent the per-pupil grant for '04-05 — our fiscal?

Hon. T. Christensen: Yes, the member's correct. That $3.875 billion is in our fiscal, and that's the amount going to school districts.

J. MacPhail: Okay. I have it as $3.87 billion from the minister's own press release. So that is the per-pupil grant.

The $35 million for the generally accepted accounting principles is already targeted. Is it fair to say, then, that the school districts are receiving $3.84 billion for actual operating expenses, excluding GAAP?

Hon. T. Christensen: The school districts are receiving the $3.875 billion, so each of them will receive a share of that $35 million that is GAAP-directed. Whether they can spend that as part of their operating budget or whether they have to set it aside for unfunded GAAP liabilities depends from district to district.

Perhaps an example will help here. These aren't new liabilities that are arising because of GAAP. GAAP imposes a requirement to account for them differently so that under GAAP we're requiring school districts to actually set aside the funds necessary to pay those future liabilities in terms of pensions, vacation pay — those types of liabilities — in an account so that they are covered off.

Some school districts — for example, Nechako Lake — have been doing that on an ongoing basis. They have a bunch of money sitting in a separate account, so they have no unfunded liabilities. As a consequence, they can take their share of that $35 million this next year and spend it on programs. Other school districts haven't been setting aside any money for that unfunded liability, so they are required to take their portion of the $35 million and put it towards that unfunded liability account.

J. MacPhail: Why would a government give any school board money for GAAP when they don't need it?

Hon. T. Christensen: The ministry certainly considered long and hard how to allocate this additional money. The reason we've called it GAAP money is because if they have a GAAP liability, they're required to attend to that first before they can use the balance of any money to put towards program spending.

What's happened over the course of a number of years is that each school district has managed that unfunded liability differently. Some have saved for that rainy day; others haven't. The ministry felt, and I certainly felt strongly, that the most equitable way of distributing that additional $35 million was to do it on a per-student basis and to not punish the good behaviour of districts that had been setting aside dollars in past years because they knew they were accruing these unfunded liabilities.

J. MacPhail: It's not punishing school boards. It was this government that imposed the generally accepted accounting principles, and no school boards were subject to them prior to this time.

All I'm trying to figure out is how much money of the $3.87 billion is going into the classroom. How much of the $35 million is not needed for GAAP?

Hon. T. Christensen: We have that information on a district-by-district basis. I certainly can provide that

to the member. We just have to add it up. If the member has a question about a specific school district, we can tell the member….

Hon. T. Christensen: I should add that in terms of that GAAP money — and I do want to reemphasize this — it's not creating new liabilities. These are liabilities that on a year-over-year basis, as they became due, school districts have to pay. Those that haven't set money aside to pay them — like, for example, Nechako Lakes — have to pay them from the operating grant they're getting in that particular year. What the move to GAAP is in effect doing is requiring school districts to put their financial house in order, so they're not on a year-over-year basis paying unfunded liabilities from the operating grant that the province provides to them.

Could the minister, then, now explain how this chart works, so when I'm adding it up, I'm not making a mistake?

Overall, if you add up the unfunded liabilities of all the districts, there's a little over $156 million in outstanding liabilities. Those, of course, vary from one district to another. Those are the overall liabilities. They vary, typically based on the size of the district, because the bigger ones have more staff and have greater liabilities in this regard.

The $35 million, then, this year and moving forward in each year will be divided among the districts on their per-pupil basis, as of this year. Once they have fully funded their unfunded liability, then any money they have left over from their portion of that $35 million they can spend as they wish in terms of programming within the district. Does that answer the member's question okay?

J. MacPhail: Basically, the unfunded liabilities across the province are about $156 million. I want to note that there are, I guess, five districts that don't have any unfunded liability, but really, it's less than $1 million going to them out of the $35 million; it's about $750,000.

Can we kind of not dance on the head of a pin? Out of the $35 million, $750,000 has the potential to be allocated to something other than GAAP. Over $34 million of the $35 million will be used for GAAP, for unfunded liabilities and not for operating expenses.

I'm going to be really generous here. Let's say $51 million of the $85 million is going to go into operating expenses for school boards. That's the actual increase for school boards this year, and then GAAP gets the rest — according to this chart anyway. Okay.

I just want to clear up something here. The January 30, 2004, information bulletin from the Ministry of Education titled Province Increases Education Funding by $85 Million states: "The 2004-05 operating funding for B.C.'s 60 school districts will be $3.875 billion, up from $3.79 billion this year." I noted that the minister earlier referred to $3.875 billion as well. What's the discrepancy between the January 30 figure, which is $3.875 billion, and the March 15 figure, $3.87 billion?

I do want to respond to the member's comments in terms of the $35 million. We've tried to be very clear that that $35 million of the $85 million was specifically for GAAP. Certainly, the fact that any part of it's not needed to bring districts into GAAP this first year is a positive. We haven't tried to use smoke and mirrors at all in terms of the true increase to districts this year being $50 million.

When the minister says it's a decimal point, is that extra $5 million there? Are we dealing with $3.875 billion?

Hon. T. Christensen: Yes, it's $3.875 billion. I take it that in the one release it was rounded to $3.87 million. Certainly, I take the member's point that we'd better be consistent on these things.

J. MacPhail: I've got it, then. Even given the $750,000 or so that's going into districts that don't need it for GAAP, we've got per-pupil grants to the system across the districts of about $3.841 million, I'm calling it.

J. MacPhail: Now, I think there's another discrepancy, but the minister can clear it up. In looking at the two releases, the January release states: "The funding amounts to about $6,748 per student, based on B.C. Stats enrolment projections." That's January 30. The March 15 release quotes the minister as saying: "That's why the basic per-pupil grant will increase by $155 to $5,520 in '04-05." The difference between the two figures is $1,228 per pupil, so could the minister explain that?

Hon. T. Christensen: Thank you, member, for the question. The January release refers to the overall funding that goes to districts. That's made up of a base per-pupil amount, but there are then additions to that for each aboriginal student, each ESL student and each of categories 1, 2 and 3 special needs students, which are each funded at a different level. All of those dollars have been lumped together and then divided by the projected enrolment, based on B.C. Stats projections, to come up with the figure that's in the January release.

By the time March rolls around — and when we're looking at the funding projections for districts next

year — the figure in that release is actually that base pupil amount. In fact, next fall once we have the enrolments confirmed, those districts, in addition to that base pupil amount, will be getting additional per-student funding for each aboriginal student, each ESL student and each of the category 1, 2 and 3 special needs students. It's really a case of what has been included in the overall number.

I should also point out to the member that by the time March 15 rolls around, we've actually received an enrolment projection from the school districts themselves. The projected enrolment in January, which I believe was about 574,000 based on B.C. Stats data, had actually decreased to approximately 571,000 by the beginning of March, based on what school districts themselves were telling us.

J. MacPhail: The difference between — if the minister could give me the global numbers — the $5,520 per-pupil grant for '04-05 listed in the March 15 release and the $6,748 per-student funding in the January 30 release…. What's that in terms of global funding, the difference? I assume that we're talking about targeted funding there. What are the actual dollar amounts, the global dollar amounts?

Hon. T. Christensen: Perhaps I can best address it by telling the member the expected total amount for each of those categories for next year. In terms of the base allocation — so that's the $5,520 per student — based on the enrolment projection, that would total $3,096,241,000 and change.

There's then actually a $250 allocation per home schooler. Based on that projection, that just adds another $71,000, so that's pretty small. There's then an adjustment, a buffer built in for enrolment decline so that districts suffering significant enrolment decline don't get hit too hard. That's $14.208 million. There's then a category for unique student needs. That includes the aboriginal, the ESL and those three categories of special needs. That adds in another $378.548 million.

There's then an adjustment for salary differentials between districts to recognize that some districts have a much more senior staff in terms of their overall staff. That adds costs. That adds another $85.365 million. There's then an adjustment for unique geographic factors, to take into account that some districts certainly have much higher heating costs and, in some cases, air conditioning costs, depending on the time of year — that and a number of other factors. That adds in $136.162 million. Further funding for transport and housing is $85.705 million, and then the GAAP funding of $35 million.

J. MacPhail: That's very helpful. I'm told by trustees — I believe it's trustees — that when you actually look at the real costs for fiscal '04-05 that can be calculated — the salary costs, the hydro increase which starts tomorrow, the MSP increases…. Then when GAAP is actually taken into account, and using the same FTE operating grant figures and methodology as in the press release, the per-pupil grant is $5,336, which is a decrease of $87 over last year.

That's why I asked for the breakdown of these numbers. My information has exactly these same numbers as the minister just gave me. Can the minister confirm that?

Hon. T. Christensen: I haven't seen those figures from school districts. Certainly, if they're provided, I'm happy to look at them and have ministry staff look at them. We're confident, based on the money being added, that that money is more than enough to cover those pressures the member outlined in terms of hydro and other ongoing year-over-year pressures.

J. MacPhail: So the minister claims that the $50 million being added covers salary pressures, hydro pressures, MSP pressures? That's what we're talking about. If we isolate out GAAP, then the $50 million, he says, meets all of those pressures and keeps the student per-pupil grant at $5,520? Sorry. I don't know how that's possible.

Hon. T. Christensen: The $5,520 doesn't include any deductions in terms of cost pressure. It's a factor of the total amount going into districts as well as declining enrolment of 8,500. The total amount of funding is certainly going up by that $50 million. The number of students is going down by about 8,500, and then those other factors vary from one district to another, as does the GAAP pressure vary from one district to another in each year going forward. Beyond that, we've also today added a further $32 million, specifically to allow districts to address the GAAP factor and get out from under that GAAP liability or to address that GAAP liability more quickly so that that will then free up resources in terms of their operating grants in future years.

J. MacPhail: I just took the announcement of $32 million as a non-factor in terms of money in the classroom, because the unfunded liability is over $156 million. I'm just trying to figure out per-pupil money going into the classroom: what it costs to educate a kid and what the real pressures are. I'm not trying to mess around with any of this other stuff, just the basic per-pupil grant and the basic costs of school boards to educate those basic kids.

The $5,520 per pupil has already been taken into a calculation — the enrolment decline, as I understand it. So enrolment decline is not a factor. But with that $5,520 per-pupil basic grant, school boards are having to pay out of that increased pressures starting tomorrow for salary pressures, hydro rates going up tomorrow and the ongoing increased pressures from MSP premium increases. It is my understanding that, when one takes those into account — real costs — that the actual per-pupil grant is then reduced to…. The government isn't providing any money for those increased

pressures, other than the $50 million. I accept that the government is providing $50 million for that. Given those real cost pressures and the $50 million on top of the basic allocation, the actual per-pupil grant is $5,336, which is a decrease of $87 per pupil over last year and a decrease of $198 per pupil since '01-02.

I don't want to be unfair, but what does the minister have to refute that? I actually do have the cost pressures of hydro and salary by district here.

Hon. T. Christensen: I think the member made a comment that declining enrolment isn't a factor. It actually is a factor in the sense that the number of students does have an implication for the costs in terms of staff and the cost of running the district.

I don't have the figures the member is referring to. Certainly, if she wants to provide them to me, I'm happy to have ministry staff go through them. We're confident in terms of the overall funding we've been able to provide and the new money: $50 million; the $35 million that is allocated to GAAP — but again, the implication is different from district to district, as are the cost pressures from district to district; as well as the additional $32 million that we were able to provide today, again, which is dedicated towards those GAAP pressures. The districts are in a good position to manage their obligations over this next year.

This discussion does highlight perhaps one of the challenges in the overall K-to-12 sector which is somewhat of a disconnect between the province who sends this next year's $3.875 billion to school districts and then school districts that have to decide how to allocate those dollars within their districts to meet the needs of their students. I can certainly admit that that's a frustration in terms of how that perhaps works or doesn't work.

What I can say, as well, is that the pressures that districts face do vary considerably from one district to another. Some districts are very vocal in terms of the pressures they face, for whatever reason. Others…. I know, for example, the Surrey school district, today in a media story I read said that their budget picture looks very rosy, and they're pleased with the money that's being provided to them by the Ministry of Education provincially. So the situation does vary from one district to another.

What I can add to that, though, is that the B.C. system of funding is pretty widely accepted as being a very equitable model. Certainly, there are those that would provide a list of arguments, depending on where they are in the province and the funding they get, as to how they would change the funding formula. But a great deal of effort has been made in consultation with school districts around the province to try and ensure that we have a funding formula that's not horrendously complex but does take into account some of the unique or diverse factors that different school districts face around the province.

J. MacPhail: Yes, but the government's dealing in global numbers. That's what the news release…. That's what we deal with — January 30 and March 15 — so I'm dealing in global numbers.

I just would like to be clear that we don't need to talk about the $32 million that the minister announced today, because it has nothing to do with going into the classroom — nothing. It's to deal with the unfunded liabilities of school boards as the result of the provincial government forcing the school boards to go to the generally accepted accounting principles.

I make no comment on whether that's right or wrong. I make no comment. I'm just saying that even given the $35 million the government gave school boards and the additional $32 million, for a total of $67 million, it gets the school boards across the province to less than halfway to meeting their obligations under generally accepted accounting principles. So the $32 million today helps with nothing in terms of kids in the classroom.

While the minister says that yes, it varies from district to district in terms of how they handle the pressures, globally we have $3,096,240,000 for the base allocation. Out of that base allocation, there are pressures that the government is not funding year over year — increases of salary, hydro, MSP, etc. We will go through and I will demonstrate these points, but the conclusion that people can come to is that the actual per-pupil grant is $5,336 per year, which is a decrease of $87 over last year.

I wanted to ask the minister this question. I went to the Liberal Party website. It's not supposed to have anything to do with government, nothing to do with government. The headline news release on the Liberal Party website is identical to the one that the minister…. The language is identical to the January 30 release — identical. How does that happen?

Hon. T. Christensen: I don't know how it happens. I assume they copied a government press release.

J. MacPhail: I expect that government resources went into this news release on the B.C. Liberal Party website, and it's unacceptable — absolutely unacceptable.

Now that we've looked at the discrepancies in the two releases, I want to turn to page 11 of the service plan '04-05, '06-07. On page 11 — that's the resource summary — I want to ask the minister: are these numbers still accurate? I've been in some estimates where the ministers have announced changes.

Let's look at the first…. There's total — I want to make sure I get this right — under the core businesses section. Its number is $4,943,165,000 for the core businesses section total for '04-05. That's an increase of $83.1 million, as I read it, over the restated estimates for '03-04. Could the minister explain why it's $83.1

million? Both other news releases refer to $85 million. Am I missing something? Is there somewhere else I should be looking?

Hon. T. Christensen: The $83 million is the increase in the core businesses total for the '04-05 government fiscal year. The $85 million that goes to school districts…. When we talk to school districts about dollars, we talk to them in their fiscal year, which is July to June, so it's for July '04 to June '05, whereas the number here in the service plan is for April '04 to March '05.

J. MacPhail: Okay. That's interesting, but the government talked to the public about that as well. I take it that for the fiscal year '04-05, the increase is $83.1 million. Could the minister break that number down? I gather that out of the $83.1 million for the fiscal '04-05, $35 million is for GAAP. The other, whatever is remaining, goes where?

Hon. T. Christensen: To provide some clarification, the $85 million that's an increase to school districts in the July '04 to June '05 school year…. Part of that $85 million will come from the government's '04-05 fiscal year, and then part of it will actually come from the government's '05-06 fiscal year, because the school year will cover those two years in a couple of months. It's in the resource summary in terms of the increase in the amount of the government's fiscal dollars that are allocated in terms of grants to public schools. It was $4,075,312,000 in '03-04, and this year it's $4,147,463,000, in '04-05.

J. MacPhail: This is a discussion for the record, so I'm just asking. This is a discussion that people can refer to later on.

Of the $83.1 million increase in the total core business, $35 million is for GAAP, as I understand it. That leaves a $48.1 million increase. That, I assume, is included in the figures that the minister just outlined. For instance, if we look at the public schools line, the top line there, the restated estimates for '03-04…. Moving to the '04-05 estimates, there's an increase of $72.2 million there. I assume that line also includes, then, the $35 million for GAAP. Is that right?

Hon. T. Christensen: Within the line that talks about public schools — that's the $4,147,463,000 — the $3.875 billion is all in there, because it's money that actually goes out to school districts in the earlier part of the year, essentially.

There is then a bunch of other stuff, other expenses, to bring us up to the $4,147,463,000. Those include things like annual capital grant, pay equity adjustment, long-term disability, BCPC, provincial resource programs, distance education and provincial learning network. There's a host of things — costs that are incurred by the ministry in terms of delivering the public education service. That figure is always, certainly, higher than the actual amount that's going to school districts.

J. MacPhail: Yes, but the difference between the two, year over year, is $72.2 million. Just to confirm, the minister didn't say it on the record, but that $72.2 million includes the $35 million for GAAP.

J. MacPhail: This figure of $72.2 million, which is an increase in what the funding public school gets, matches what it says in table A9 of the budget and fiscal plan, which shows that school districts get a revenue boost of $72 million from '03-04 to '04-05. Can the minister just explain for me again why the March 15 news release says "operating funding for school districts in '04-05 will increase by $85 million"?

Hon. T. Christensen: Because the operating funding for school districts in their '04-05 school year…. When we talk to school districts, we talk in their fiscal year because that's what they're interested in. Quite frankly, that's what I've certainly found the public's interested in, because they think of the funding in not so much a July to June pocket but more a September to June pocket, because that's when their kids are at school.

The March 15 release is a legislated requirement that we provide districts with a projection of what their grant for the following school year is going to be to allow them to budget appropriately. That is very much based on their July-to-June year. I certainly acknowledge that it creates lots of room for confusion when we're trying to look at the Ministry of Education's budget versus the school district budget, but typically, school districts are most interested in whether they actually…. They don't care so much what happens with the ministry's overall budget. What they're concerned about is what they are getting from the ministry to help them with their budgets.

J. MacPhail: Well, I don't think that's exactly accurate, because then next year, in '05-06, they have to pay the bills as well. Really, if we're being accurate, and I'll tell you…. I'm looking at table A9 of the budget and fiscal plan. For '04-05 the school districts are getting a $72 million boost, of which $35 million is for GAAP. Then in '05-06 they're getting a $33 million boost, of which part of this, I guess…. That boost for '05-06 is being announced already amongst the $85 million. Is that right?

Hon. T. Christensen: If I follow the member's reasoning, yes, that is right, because it is $85 million in terms of the school district school year. Part of that has to come from each of two of the government's fiscal years. From a school district perspective, the next important step is that in '05-06 there's a further $20 million that is going to school districts beyond the $85 million from this year.

I'm just curious. Noting this table A9, there's a deficit forecast for '06-07 amongst school districts of $4 million. What's that about?

We can recess, and the minister can find that answer out over the recess, if that's okay.

J. MacPhail: We're talking about the money for the fiscal '04-05, and I'm wondering whether the minister has an answer for what the reason is for a projected deficit for '06-07.

Hon. T. Christensen: I don't have a readily available answer to that. I will get one from the Ministry of Finance.

J. MacPhail: That's fine. The minister does know that I'm referring to page 147 of the….

J. MacPhail: Okay. I'm back on the "Resource Summary", page 11 of the Service Plan 2004-05-2006-07 of the Ministry of Education.

The public schools get $72.2 million, and then, as I read it, there's a $9.4 million increase for the independent schools. Then there's $4.3 million extra for executive and support services. That totals up to $83.1 million. Just to reiterate, "Core Business" funding: public schools get an extra $72.2 million, of which $35 million is for GAAP; independent schools get an extra $9.4 million; executive and support services get an extra $4.3 million year over year. That totals up to $83.1 million, as I see it.

I hate to be cheeky, but where's the $85 million going for school districts? How does that work? How does the news release jibe with what I've just said?

Hon. T. Christensen: The news release refers to the dollars that will be available to school districts for their fiscal year, July 2004 through to June 2005. Their fiscal year actually covers two of ours — always. It's still a 12-month year, but — I'll think about this for a sec — nine of those months are in the government's '04-05 year, and three of those months are actually in the government's '05-06 year. The full $85 million increase that's going to school districts fits within the $4.147 billion that's allocated to public schools. Then the balance goes to a number of other costs related to public schools that are funded directly by the ministry, rather than funds that go to districts and then they pay those costs.

J. MacPhail: Okay. Well, I actually do appreciate the minister's forthrightness, but…. No buts. For the fiscal '04-05, as far as I can tell, there is $72.2 million going for public schools, of which $35 million is for GAAP, which doesn't go into the classroom.

Hon. T. Christensen: That's based on projected enrolment for independent schools. Again, I don't want anybody reading the record to be confused by the discrepancy that appears to be there in terms of the $72.2 million that the member mentions. When the province makes announcements of public school funding and, in particular, the announcement in January and the announcement in March…. Both of those announcements are driven by what the public schools and the 60 school districts in the province require for their budgeting purposes. In January the province is required to release a global number in terms of the projected funding that will go to school districts in the ensuing school district financial year — the July-to-June year. By March 15 the province is obligated to actually provide to school districts those numbers on a district-by-district basis, rather than a global basis.

The member is talking about the government's fiscal year, and that's quite appropriate. These are estimates for the provincial government. But when we refer to news releases, those are most relevant to the school district financial year, which is distinctly different than the provincial government fiscal year. That's why you can't simply look at the government fiscal year and look for an $85 million allocation, because it's not in the same fiscal year as school districts are.

J. MacPhail: I do understand that. The reason why the government does that, in this particular case, is because they're announcing funding from the next fiscal year in order to boost the number. That's what they're doing. Whatever. We've had an honest discussion about it. The facts speak for themselves.

What is the enrolment increase in absolute numbers in the independent schools, please, year over year?

Hon. T. Christensen: We've got a projected increase in terms of the independent school enrolment of 4 percent.

I do want to clarify, though. The announcements in January and March, in referring to the school district

fiscal year, aren't driven by any desire to boost numbers. They're driven by a requirement to provide school districts with numbers relevant to their fiscal year. That's what drives that number, and that's what school districts want.

J. MacPhail: A 4 percent increase in independent schools — does the minister have an analysis of where that increase is? Is it in parochial schools? Is it in faith-based schools? Where?

Hon. T. Christensen: We haven't broken down the projected increase in enrolment by the type of school. We can obtain for the member the number of schools that fit in each different category if she likes, but we don't have that breakdown in terms of enrolment available at this time. I can, if the member likes, give a further breakdown in terms of how that $176 million breaks down.

J. MacPhail: Sure. There's no priority on that, but that would be interesting.

The $4.3 million increase for executive and support services — can the minister explain that, please, year over year?

Hon. T. Christensen: That increase is related to the common student information system, which is something the province will be managing, moving forward, so that individual districts don't actually have to have staff within their own districts and be allocating a great deal of resources to management of student information.

J. MacPhail: What's the common student information system? Is that where each student has an identification number?

Hon. T. Christensen: Up to this point we've had difficulty, because we've had different information systems in different districts. That has created a difficulty for the province to coordinate that data. In conjunction with districts, we're moving towards a common student information system: that is, software that will certainly allow use of those personal student numbers to track students but will also, we believe, give us a better handle on the number of kids in the system — where they are, the courses they're taking, the results they're getting. Over all, it will provide much better data for the ministry and for individual school districts to make decisions about how to improve student outcomes.

J. MacPhail: Is that information system the reason for the entire $4.3 million increase in executive and support services?

Hon. T. Christensen: There's not a direct correlation in terms of a reduction in costs. We certainly do expect that this common information system is something that's going to be easier to use for school districts. They may save some staff costs in that. They may save some other costs overall in terms of repurchasing their own local information systems — that type of ongoing thing.

Really, this is intended to replace information systems that they were already using. They will still have some ongoing management costs in terms of the local information, but this has been done — certainly, in conjunction with school districts — to ensure that the information system does meet both their needs and the province's needs and that overall we have a better ability to use the data that is gathered to make better decisions.

J. MacPhail: Now, when the minister announced the $85 million funding increase for school districts, did that include the funding increase for independent schools?

Hon. T. Christensen: No. The $85 million, as indicated before, is directed by our obligation to provide that information to school districts. That is money only for the public school system.

J. MacPhail: Okay. For the very last time, then, let me ask this question just so we can have it on record. Of the $85 million funding, which includes GAAP, what portion of the $85 million is coming out of the '04-05 year budget for the provincial government, and how much is coming out of the '05-06 provincial budget?

Hon. T. Christensen: Chair, 7/10 come out of the '04-05 fiscal year, and 3/10 come out of the '05-06 fiscal year.

J. MacPhail: Okay, so '04-05 is 7/10 — I'll do the math — and '05-06…. All right.

Mr. Chair, the reason I'm focusing on this is because we always get into a big discussion, now — although I must say that this discussion has gone better than previous years…. There is all sorts of confusion about funding levels, and I know this government promised they were going to give a stable and predictable environment for public education — so, fair enough.

To date, though, the education budget, as I can determine it, has been frozen, but additional funds are provided as one-time grants. School boards have struggled to implement ongoing programs based on the one-time funding. I think it's fair to say that this will be the first year since the government came to power that school boards get the first reliable increase — in three years.

In the face of all this confusion and instability, combined with the increased cost pressures, I think it's safe to say that boards have been forced to make cuts. I don't know of a school board across the province that hasn't made cuts. My own school board, the Vancouver school board — and I know the minister and his government object terribly to the ideology of the Vancouver school board, but it is my school board — is facing $11 million of cuts this year alone.

For the sake of clarity, to assist…. I'm very interested in assisting my own school board. Let's put on the record what the per-pupil grant is expected to be for the '04…. Well, the minister can put the per-pupil grant on for the '04-05 school year. He can identify, and then I can do the 7/10–3/10…. I want him to put it on record in light of the throne speech promise. The throne speech promise said this: there will be $313 million extra by '07. Can the minister outline for me what the expected per-pupil grant is for '04-05, '05-06, '06-07? And can he tell me whether that's in the context of a provincial fiscal year or a school district fiscal year?

Hon. T. Christensen: We've got to recognize that these numbers are projections, and they're based very much on sort of what we're projecting might happen with enrolment over the next couple of years. Having said that, certainly for the '04-05 year, where we've got $3.875 billion that is going to districts…. If you just lump that together and you don't look at it in terms of the base amount and the special needs and the ESL, if you just look at that one global number and divide it by the projected number of students, you've got a projection of $6,748 per student. That's consistent with the January news release. That's for the '04-05 school year.

The following year there's a further $20 million lift in the operating funding to districts, so it becomes $3.895 billion. There's a further projection of declining enrolment, so the per-pupil spending for the '05-06 school year, July '05 to June '06, is projected to be $6,855 per student. Then the year beyond that, '06-07 — we're now projecting three years out, so there's less certainty there — again, there's still an expectation of declining enrolment. The projection there in terms of the per-pupil spending is $7,190. But again, that….

Hon. T. Christensen: The projected global operating funding, then, for '06-07 is $4.045 billion. Those are figures that were actually provided to school districts with the March 15 announcement because while we're required to provide them by March 15 with the breakdown for the coming school fiscal year, we've been trying to provide them with those numbers looking two years out, in the hope that they can do some longer-term planning.

J. MacPhail: Okay. I'm just trying to rationalize this with the throne speech promise of $313 million extra by '07. I'm not there yet, unless we're doing the every year…. For instance, you'd calculate the $20 million twice or something, because it's every year. What's that $313 million about? Let's just get down to it.

Then I'm going to ask a subsequent question about GAAP. Do those figures include GAAP funding, and can the minister give me those figures without GAAP funding?

Hon. T. Christensen: The $313 million is the Ministry of Education's funding — $83 million more within the Ministry of Education's overall budget in '04-05, starting tomorrow; $60 million more in '05-06; and then a further $170 million more to the Ministry of Education budget in '06-07. Sorry, I've misplaced the second question. That, certainly, is the $313 million.

In terms of GAAP, the GAAP portion is there in each year. Again, when we talk about the $35 million for GAAP, which is that ongoing portion, that is part of an overall increase in the funding going to school districts. Whether or not they have to apply their portion of that $35 million to unfunded GAAP liabilities depends on whether they have any more unfunded liabilities. As we move forward, each year there will be fewer and fewer districts that have unfunded liabilities, so two or three years from now a good number of districts will be able to take their share of that $35 million and spend it however they wish in terms of services in the classroom.

If $35 million doesn't stop at some point in the future when the GAAP liabilities are taken care of, that's $35 million that school districts are going to have this year, next year and each year thereafter. It becomes part of their overall grant.

J. MacPhail: Well, something I was curious about with the unfunded liability is: is the government saying, then, that starting tomorrow the school boards will have books that will not have any forward-looking unfunded liability for benefits and vacation pay and that that will be neutral on their books when they do that?

Hon. T. Christensen: No, that's not what we're saying. What we're saying is that each year moving forward, a district that has any unfunded liabilities has to set aside their share of the $35 million until they get to zero. Once they get to zero, they can spend it however they wish in terms of programming within the district.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I appreciate that. We may be talking about different issues.

I'm looking at the chart that the minister gave me, option 2. It's dated January 29, 2004. There's an unfunded liability as a result of generally accepted accounting principles, provincewide, of $156,067,808. That's a snapshot. Or is it?

Will school boards, subsequent to this, not expand the unfunded liability at all? Is there any cost to that?

Hon. T. Christensen: Sorry, I think I misunderstood what the member was saying before.

Those unfunded liabilities will continue to accrue, because you still have employees and their pension benefits and vacation pay continue to accrue year over year. What we're concerned about in terms of the move to GAAP…. It's not an unfunded liability that's created by GAAP; it's an unfunded liability that exists. Districts that haven't been setting money aside to pay for it have actually been paying it as it comes due, from their operating funds, thereby taking those funds away from classrooms. As part of wanting to ensure prudent fiscal management within school districts and in going to GAAP, the government is saying: "You must set aside funds in an account to cover off those liabilities that you're accruing now but don't have to pay yet so the money is there to pay them and you're not taking your operating funding in the future to pay those liabilities."

Hon. T. Christensen: No. They're not part of the government reporting entity. They simply operate on a year-over-year basis with the funds we give them. The public sector isn't on the hook for vacation pay or pension liability. The independent society, in most cases, that employs the staff in independent schools is the one that's on the hook — the one that is liable for those liabilities. The government has nothing to do with it.

Hon. T. Christensen: We provide operating funds to private schools, independent schools, but the employees of those schools, the teachers in those schools, are not public employees. They are employees of the independent school where they work. We're providing a grant to the independent school to allow it to operate, but it doesn't become part of the public entity — as opposed to public schools, where those teachers and other employees of those school districts are public employees. As they retire or accumulate vacation pay, a public entity in the form of a school district is actually liable for those payments. That's why they need to come into GAAP and independent schools don't.

In terms of the per-pupil figures that the minister just gave me, which takes the global funding and divides it by the number of students, what happens when you remove GAAP? I'd kind of like to know what the figures would be for per-pupil funding based on the principles applied in the March 15, 2004, news release. Carry that through to '06-07.

Hon. T. Christensen: In '04-05 it's 35 — this is the government fiscal year — of the $83 million increase. In '05-06 the cumulative increase, because it's going up $83 million for '04-05 and another $60 million for '05-06, it becomes $35 million of a total of $143 million. In '06-07 there's a further $170 million, so your cumulative increase in that year compared to the year we're just finishing today is $313 million, of which GAAP is still only $35 million.

The important thing to recognize, though, certainly from a school district standpoint, is that the number of school districts that have to use that $35 million for GAAP in each year is going to decrease as they get to the zero balance in their unfunded liability account.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I appreciate that. But we have $156 million unfunded liability as of today's snapshot, so that's going to take quite a few years.

My question was: can the minister give me…? Like, the March 15 news release says that the basic per-pupil student grant for '04-05 is $5,520. Given those calculations, what are they for '05-06, '06-07, and what are…? Well, that's question number one.

Hon. T. Christensen: I don't have those specific numbers with me. Certainly, we can make those calculations and provide them to the member.

J. MacPhail: This is what we're talking about — stability of funding. Could the minister also give me those figures minus GAAP for that same period of time?

J. MacPhail: I hope we can have that tomorrow, because I think that as we discover the answer to why table A9 of the budget and fiscal plan shows a deficit for school districts in '06-07, we'll discover…. I mean, all of this information comes together at that time.

Okay. Now I want to talk about one-time grants. This is what I've been able to suss out in terms of keeping track of the one-time grants to the K-to-12 public system. In 2001-02 there was a $42 million one-time grant. In 2002-03 there was a $50 million one-time injection. Then today, for '03-04, at the end of this fiscal, the minister announced $32 million. Have I got that right?

The press release today — and I've been curious about this, as we've discussed GAAP funding all day

— does say, and the minister has been forthright, that the $32 million today is in addition to the $35 million per year that the province is giving the school districts for future unfunded employee benefits. Now, is the minister saying that the requirements to meet the principles of generally accepted accounting principles are captured by unfunded employee benefits? Are they the same thing — identical — or is there anything extra to generally accepted accounting principles?

Hon. T. Christensen: The unfunded liabilities are essentially made up of local debt, which is pretty minimal, and then employee benefits with sick leave accrual, vacation. Some districts have a retirement bonus built in. That's what makes up those unfunded liabilities, and that's what the whole of each district's share of the $35 million must be dedicated to, until they get to that zero balance. Then they have the freedom.

I should note that the B.C. School Trustees have responded positively today to the announcement of the additional $32 million, recognizing that they are restricted in how they can use it. From their standpoint, in terms of managing their school board districts this certainly assists them in this transition to GAAP and certainly assists them in moving forward to ensure that their operating dollars go towards the important programs in the districts.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I'm sure the school trustees would welcome it. It's an accounting matter imposed on them by the provincial government, and fair enough. The provincial government is coughing up money to deal with that. That's fine, but it isn't money going into the classroom.

This chart says: "Provincial summary of employee future benefits and vacation pay." To be very clear, is the ministry's definition of funding for employee future benefits and vacation pay, which may currently be unfunded…? Is that their total, complete response to GAAP?

Hon. T. Christensen: To the best of our knowledge it is. I do want to be clear, however, that notwithstanding that auditors general across this country have been directing or strongly recommending to governments that we move towards generally accepted accounting principles, British Columbia is actually the first government in the country to do it.

I'm certainly finding, when I talk to accountants, that there's some room for discussion there. Based on the work that the comptroller general and the Ministry of Finance have been doing, to the best of our knowledge that's the complete list. I don't want the member to be misled that we might, as we move forward, find something in terms of school districts that needs to be further included. Certainly, we're not aware of anything at this point.

Okay. Buffer grants. When I asked the minister to break down the funding for the total for the core business increase, he mentioned an allocation of $14.208 million for enrolment decline. Is that a continuation of the buffer grant?

Hon. T. Christensen: No, it's not a continuation of the buffer grant that was in place when the funding formula was changed; it's an ongoing account to assist districts that are facing declining enrolment. If a district has an enrolment decline of greater than 1 percent one year over the next, then the province, rather than removing the full per-pupil funding for that greater than 1 percent, will actually still fund half a pupil, as if they were still in the classroom. Otherwise, it is simply too dramatic a decline for some of our districts that have, unfortunately, been faced with rapid declines.

J. MacPhail: I'm going to ask about buffer grants, then, which the minister says is a separate item. I was curious as to the prediction of enrolment decline. Can the minister give some backup to that? Of course, I have heard the Premier, the Finance minister and God knows who claiming: "Oh, my God, the population trend has reversed after that terrible decade of decline." Who's coming back — old people?

Hon. T. Christensen: The demographic shift in terms of having fewer kids, notwithstanding my best efforts, is in decline right across the western world, as far as I understand. While we're certainly encouraged by recent statistics about migration between provinces — that British Columbia is getting back on track and that people are excited about moving back to British Columbia because of all the opportunities here — it doesn't completely address our enrolment decline. While we're happy to be receiving students from other provinces, the projections at this point certainly don't make a big dent in that general trend of declining enrolment, which, as I've said, is not at all unique to British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: Could the minister give me the comparison? First of all, tell me what the enrolment decline is up to '06-07, which is the three-year fiscal plan we're dealing with, and how does that compare to the rest of the country?

Hon. T. Christensen: The enrolment for the '03-04 year was 582,813. That's projected to decline next fall to 574,219; in '05-06, 568,193; and '06-07, 562,510. That's essentially a reduction of about 6,000 students each year. In fact, it's a little bit less than that for '06-07. It is certainly worth noting that these are projections. That is consistent, in terms of the percentage, with most other provinces in the country. We know that. I don't have the specific figures for other provinces. The only

exception is Alberta, apparently, which isn't facing as rapid a decline. They're relatively flatlined, but hopefully more of them are moving back here, and then we'll be in the same circumstance.

What is also worth noting, and the member might find it of interest — this is where you really see and can project the dramatic shift — is that if we look at the '03-04 school year, we've got 55,320 students in grade 12. They're going to be graduating this year, or the vast majority of them are going to be graduating. We only have — again notwithstanding my best efforts — 36,554 children in kindergarten. We've got a dramatic difference of about 19,000 that are leaving the system versus coming in, in year one.

J. MacPhail: This is basically 6,000 each year, as the minister says, which is a little better than a 1 percent enrolment decline and cumulative about 4 percent.

Hon. T. Christensen: Yes, those are the numbers projected in terms of the students within the school district.

In the independent schools there has been that relative trend upward over the last decade or so. As I think I said earlier, that appears to have slowed down a bit more recently. We have a difficult time making overall projections for the independent schools, because in the grand scheme of things their enrolments are actually relatively small. It makes it difficult to make accurate predictions. We're working here with B.C. Stats information in terms of what they're projecting, moving forward.

J. MacPhail: If the ministry is predicting a decline each year of an absolute number of about 6,000 students, what's the prediction for the increase in the enrolment in the independent schools? The minister said earlier a 4 percent increase in independent schools. What does that mean in terms of children?

Hon. T. Christensen: It's projected to be about 2,400 kids on a base of just over 63,000.

Hon. T. Christensen: Yes, that's for the '04-05 year. It would likely be similar the year after.

J. MacPhail: So we're losing 6,000 children out of the…. There's a decline in enrolment. Sorry, I don't mean to overemphasize the language here. There are 6,000 fewer children going to be in the public school system each year and 2,400 more in the independent school system. We are losing an absolute number of children enrolled in our education systems of — what? — 5,600.

J. MacPhail: It's 3,600 — thank you, Mr. Chair — a net decline of 3,600. How are we doing in relation to other provinces, or is it possible to compare?

I know that I grew up in the Ontario system where there's a separate Catholic school board, and I think it still exists.

Hon. T. Christensen: I'm not sure I understood the member's question in terms of what we're trying to compare.

Hon. T. Christensen: Oh, the shift between public and independent. It's difficult to compare in British Columbia, because we don't have a separate religious-based school system. We do know that the vast majority of our independent schools are faith-based schools. Whether those are a good number of schools that are Catholic schools or whether they are other Christian schools or Sikh schools or others, we know that the vast majority of them are serving a population that wishes to have faith or their religion incorporated into the curriculum. That's a motivating factor in terms of putting their kids in independent schools.

You don't face that in a good number of other provinces because other provinces — Alberta and Ontario, I think, are good examples — have basically dual-track public education systems: one usually the Catholic-based system, and then the non-denominational system.

J. MacPhail: Back to the buffer grants. I think I remember the buffer grants as being given out to school boards that were hit negatively with the changes to the funding formula. The grant that was given was called the buffer grant, and it was designed to offset the impacts to those districts losing money. I also remember the government saying that they were going to phase out the buffer grants.

In '02-03, as I recall, the buffer grant was $25 million. In '03-04 it was $12.5 million. I can't find any buffer grant for '04-05. Has the buffer grant been eliminated?

J. MacPhail: Is it the minister's view that there is no ill effect this year in terms of funding-formula changes?

Hon. T. Christensen: When the ministry undertook the funding formula change, the intent was to fund school districts based primarily on the number of students they served rather than on a number of other factors. Certainly, there was widespread discussion with school districts in regard to that. It was from those discussions that the buffer grant was created, and from those discussions it was decided that it would be faded out through three years.

The effect of the buffer grant, actually, is that you're moving money from one district to buffer another because the overall funding is still the same overall enve-

lope. In discussions with districts, they felt that three years was a fair compromise in terms of that shift to the new funding formula. In districts that were strongly favoured by the previous funding formula, I'm relatively certain they would argue with me that they're still facing impacts from the shift in the funding formula. We strongly believe that we have a more appropriate funding formula and a more equitable funding formula in place now than had been there previously, with a great number of categories.

J. MacPhail: What, if any, monitoring system does the minister have in place for the impacts of the funding formula and monitoring for future, if any, changes?

Hon. T. Christensen: The funding formula is something that while there's no plans for major changes, it is something that is subject to ongoing review by a technical review committee made up of people from within my ministry and also representatives from a number of districts around the province. There's generally a belief, and a strong belief, that we've pretty much got it right in terms of that funding formula now.

J. MacPhail: I want to turn to cost pressures. This is where we were at earlier.

The concern still is there, I expect, that while cost pressures increased, the provincial funding was frozen for the three years, separate and apart from the one-time funding grants that don't go into the base core funding. School boards — we're told, anyway — were forced and continue to be forced to make cuts in programs to pay for necessary anticipated costs in other areas. Of course, the one-time grants don't help with that because they're not ongoing funding and guaranteed funding, and they do come in after budget decisions have already been made.

Here's my list of cost pressures. The minister is free to challenge them or add to them: teacher salary increase; CUPE contract increase; salary creep, which I mean to be as teachers gain seniority or educational experience, they get higher salary levels; benefit increases; MSP increases; utility increases, particularly B.C. Hydro; and increased transportation costs with increased fuel costs.

Hon. T. Christensen: The member raises a number of factors, all of which may be relevant. The degree of relevance changes from district to district. I do want to provide some clarity on some of them.

With respect to the teachers' salary increase, we're coming out of the '03-04 year and moving forward, and the government's not anticipating a further pressure there. The salary creep works both ways in the sense that there are teachers retiring from the system and new teachers coming in at a lesser cost. Again, those things get managed on a district-by-district basis to some extent, in that some districts have early retirement incentives and things they can manage themselves. Then there are other general cost increases that apply, really, in the operation of any entity or business in the province.

The approach that this government has very decidedly taken is based much on the input of school districts prior to the last provincial election. School districts are locally elected folks who are elected to make decisions about how the budget should be spent within their school district. They do choose to make those decisions differently from one district to another. Our concern is that in doing that, they focus their resources on improving student achievement. We certainly have discussions with them in terms of their accountability contracts. We monitor them through district reviews, which are essentially peer reviews, to ensure that they are focusing on that important goal of student achievement. Beyond that, school districts are responsible for managing the dollars, including the pressures they face, and they have degrees of success, one from the other.

If the member is suggesting that the province should take back a bunch of that responsibility and have a good number of funding categories, that would be in direct conflict with the deliberate direction we've taken in terms of saying: "Listen, as provincial budgets allow and as the fiscal situation of the province as a whole improves, we're going to provide additional funding to education." We're doing that, and that's borne out by the increase in the operating funds being provided to districts. We will continue to provide increased funding, as the fiscal situation allows, to districts in recognition of the priority that the government puts on education. That still means, though, that districts, when they get that lump sum of money, have to figure out how to best manage those dollars for the benefit of students within their district.

J. MacPhail: Things are going very well, so I'm going to be gentle, but that was a bunch of gobbledegook. This isn't an ordinary business. Businesses have fixed costs. School boards have fixed costs. Businesses have a way of raising revenue to match increased fixed costs. They have an ability to make productivity changes. In this particular situation school boards' fixed costs are rising, some of which are a direct result of cost increases imposed by the provincial government. School boards do not have any way of raising revenues…. We'll get to that, to see whether the privatization of school board operations is leading to revenue increases.

Let's just go through some of these cost increases. Let's start with utility rates. Tomorrow hydro rates go up 7.23 percent. What is the government planning on doing for school boards with this imposed fixed-cost increase? Or is it a fixed-cost increase?

Hon. T. Christensen: The increase in utility costs is there. It will vary from one district to another. Different districts will adopt different strategies to try and deal with that pressure, but the Ministry of Education centrally in Victoria is no longer in the business of micromanaging school districts around the province. We're

providing equitable funding. We're increasing that funding by $50 million for this next school year and further increases in years out, and we expect school districts to manage those pressures within the increased funding we're providing them.

J. MacPhail: Except that you're not providing increased funding for all of these increased pressures. That's what I'm getting at. I actually figured it out that the increased funding for this year is down in the…. God, I've calculated it somewhere; sorry. For the '04-05 government fiscal year the increased funding is a net $24.5 million, so $59.5 million out of the '04-05 provincial fiscal, $35 million of which is GAAP, and the full amount comes out of the '04-05 government fiscal year. That leaves $24.5 million. That's the overall increase.

Here's what I have for hydro rate increases. The minister says it will vary. Yeah, it'll vary. The Surrey school board will have to pay $219,941 more, starting tomorrow, for the rate increase tomorrow, and then, of course, there is a projected increase for '05-06 on January 1, which will cost Surrey another $65,000. There is disturbing news coming from B.C. Hydro that they're actually asking for a larger rate increase earlier on. The overall rate increase will remain the same — around 9 percent — but they're asking for it earlier.

In my school district, Vancouver, the rate increase will cost Vancouver $159,519 starting tomorrow, and then if the 2 percent increase doesn't kick in until '05-06, that's an additional $47,317. The overall hydro rate increase across the province kicking into effect tomorrow will mean added costs to all school districts to a total of $2,505,036. Then if the rate increase is staged for a second rate increase in '05-06, it's an additional $743,055 in '05-06. However, there is a very great potential that it can move up to being earlier this year, as well, if Hydro gets its way.

Hon. T. Christensen: The member continues to talk about the government fiscal year in terms of the net dollars. The reality is that school districts, when they're looking at pressures or otherwise, deal in their own fiscal years. While the member talks about $24 million, I think the fiscal reality — and I didn't quite follow how she got there — reality for school districts is that there's an additional $85 million going to them next year, of which $50 million has no strings attached in terms of how they decide to allocate it to deal with the pressures they face.

Again, that's going to change from one district to another. The Surrey school district that the member mentioned issued a press release today saying that their budget picture looks very rosy. I know the Vancouver school board is expressing some really strong concerns about the budget situation they face. I'm looking forward to meeting with the Vancouver school board and discussing those issues with them. School boards have the autonomy to make those decisions, and we expect them to make what can be, at times, difficult decisions. The provincial government will continue to increase funding overall and distribute that among school districts.

The ministry also will, where school districts are expressing a challenge…. If they want some involvement from the ministry, we certainly have a number of very qualified and experienced employees within the ministry who can assist in looking at the numbers and making suggestions in terms of how they can handle those pressures. It is going to differ from one district to another because districts certainly, four years ago, requested the autonomy to make those local decisions. We've entrusted them to do that — and not micromanage their budgets from Victoria.

J. MacPhail: Unfortunately, the government is micromanaging the budget by imposing a huge increase in costs.

You know, I find it very interesting that this government rails about how awful it was that hydro rates were frozen for six years — just awful. Hydro continued to make a profit, the dividend transferred to the government continued to increase to pay for health and education, and hydro rates were frozen — isn't that awful. When this government gets in power, they're claiming great success because the BCUC is going to independently determine that hydro rates are going to go up by 7 percent. Who gets affected? School kids. Somehow this is the making of school boards, and this is what school boards asked for.

I don't recall a school board ever saying: "Hey, you know what? When you increase hydro rates, that's just fine for us as long as you give us autonomy on how to manage our money." No school board said that to any government member. No school board did. No school board asked this government to arbitrarily impose increases to their fixed costs without any compensation.

In fact, I remember exactly this government, when they were in opposition, railing on me because natural gas costs were going up. This government, in opposition, said, "Pay those extra natural gas costs," which we did. I think it was something like $19 million extra — I'm doing this from memory, Mr. Chair — that we gave to school boards, because it was not of their making and we didn't want to affect resources to the classroom.

It just so happened that the then Liberal opposition thought that was a good idea too. But no. Now it's school boards that are supposed to manage these costs themselves. Well, I'm sorry. I missed the great call that everything's fine from the Surrey school board. Could the minister outline for me what is so great about the Surrey school board right now? What was the news release that he keeps referring to? What did it say?

Hon. T. Christensen: I'm not going to purport to speak on behalf of the Surrey school board. As I indicated earlier, all I saw was the story in the Vancouver Sun as a follow-up to a press release that the school board released. The word that the budget chair, I be-

lieve it was, for the Surrey school board used was that their budget picture was looking rosy. They felt the provincial government, in moving to per-pupil funding, was treating the school board fairly and doing well in providing funds to the Surrey school board.

J. MacPhail: Well, I guess if he's quoting the Vancouver Sun, I can find that out myself.

I'm sorry — did the minister just say he was going to meet with the Vancouver school board? That would be great, because the previous minister refused to. When is that meeting going to take place with the Vancouver school board?

Hon. T. Christensen: I'm not aware of the date yet. I know that the Vancouver school board has requested a meeting and that I've told my staff to arrange that meeting. I'm hoping it's relatively soon. I'm looking forward to it.

J. MacPhail: Who is making the arrangements — the minister's office and the superintendent of the Vancouver school board? Are those arrangements in progress?

Hon. T. Christensen: I've directed my staff to make those arrangements. I believe I saw the invitation sometime within the last couple of weeks and gave that direction. I don't know the status of it at this point, so I don't have a date, but it's my understanding that those arrangements are being made.

J. Kwan: I apologize for the delay as we were changing the guards, so to speak. I was trying to get caught up on what my colleague had covered, to get a sense of where I should go in terms of estimates in the Education ministry here.

As I understand it, my colleague had covered some of the increased pressures for the education system, and I think she dealt particularly with fuel costs, just prior to my coming in. I think I also heard her ask a question about a meeting being set up with the minister and the BCTF, and I believe that's in the works.

J. Kwan: Oh, sorry — with the Vancouver school board. I think that's in the works. It is true, as my colleague mentioned, that the former Minister of Education actually never met with the Vancouver school board, which I think is a shame. That is not helpful for all concerned and particularly the children and students in our system.

I'd like to ask the minister: has the minister considered seeking an exemption for school boards for utility increases? This year's increase for school boards in this area alone is $2.5 million.

Hon. T. Christensen: I shouldn't say I haven't considered it. I'm not in favour of doing it. I wouldn't seek an exemption. I think that in the context of the province as a whole, school districts and schools and services to our students are obviously critically important. We're adding dollars to the Ministry of Education and getting those dollars out to school districts to assist them in addressing these pressures.

In terms of B.C. Hydro — and certainly, I'm not the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro — I think it's important that we as a government not interfere in the general operations of B.C. Hydro but allow it, as best as possible while serving the broad public interest, to operate as a Crown corporation without a lot of government interference and without a whole list of exemptions because government is somehow pressured because of what Hydro is doing. I'm not in favour of seeking that sort of interference.

J. Kwan: If the minister doesn't think an exemption should be made for school boards in the area of utility increases and costs, then why doesn't the government fund it? It used to be funded under the previous administration. When there are increases — and not increases just in rates, but also as a result of weather situations…. We'll recall that several winters ago, there was a serious cold spell that took place in the community, and that put on tremendous pressures. The government then, the previous administration, actually paid for those costs. Now, these costs are increases as a result of the increase in tax, if you will, in terms of gas costs, in terms of fuel costs. Will the minister go back to cabinet and argue for dollars to offset these costs for school boards?

Hon. T. Christensen: The overall funding formula for the province, and I did go through this with the member for Vancouver-Hastings earlier, includes an element that accounts for geographic differences, a significant one being the fact that it's much colder in the north. There are some parts of the province, the Okanagan being one of them, that have higher air conditioning costs at certain times of the year. There is that accounting for those regional differences.

Overall, the difficulty with what the member is proposing is that — certainly, I guess, in theory — the province could say: "We'll pay your hydro costs, or we'll direct B.C. Hydro not to charge hydro costs to school districts." We certainly believe that what we should be doing, as the Ministry of Education and a central body in Victoria, is working to increase the overall funding we're giving to districts. That's what

we're doing. There's a $50 million operating increase for '04-05. Beyond that, there's $35 million for GAAP, but we've canvassed that pretty thoroughly. We think the districts can then, with that increased funding, manage the pressures they have.

Some districts will be more successful than others in managing those. Perhaps the hydro costs are the perfect example. There may be districts that can look at innovative ways of reducing their overall hydroelectric usage so that they can find the savings. By giving them block funding increases, we can actually reward their good behaviour, or at least not be penalizing their good behaviour, in finding efficiencies in how they manage that particular cost pressure.

If we were simply to say, "We'll fund it whatever happens, and we'll fund each pressure in a very specific way," there would be no incentive whatsoever for districts to try and adopt innovative practices to manage those pressures. I firmly believe that the more appropriate approach for the provincial government is to say: "Yes, we recognize there are pressures moving forward, and what we're working to do is increase the overall budget that's going to school districts." That's exactly what is happening in '04-05.

J. Kwan: I'm just getting information about what's going on in the other House in terms of when we rise.

The trouble with the minister's analysis is this: the $50 million increase to school boards, to education, does not cover the increased costs overall. We're talking about one aspect of it, but it's not just hydro costs that are causing increased pressures for school boards. There's a whole host of them: teachers' salaries; contract salary increases for non-teachers, support staff — sorry, I momentarily forgot what those individuals are called — benefits increases; MSP increases; now utility increases; transportation costs; and so on.

It's not just one area in terms of increased pressures that this government has downloaded onto school boards. It's cumulative in terms of all the other areas as well. Under the previous administration, these kinds of costs were paid for separate and apart from the funding formula for students so that the dollars that go to classrooms would not be negatively impacted. Dollars for the classrooms now would have to be taken away to pay for these increased costs. You have to pay for heating costs. You have to pay for the increased salaries and so on.

The argument that the minister has put forward doesn't wash. To say that the funding formula addresses this…. If it does, then it should offset the cost, but it doesn't. It falls way short of the increased pressures. That's one.

Second, to suggest that school boards are forced and that the government must do this so they will be innovative in finding resources elsewhere and finding ability to cut costs is, well, misguided at best in terms of that analogy. I believe that funding into the school system…. As school boards have to report out each year to the ministry how they have spent every cent and how they have benefited the classrooms, I think it is plain for people to see that there are no more corners to be cut. There's no more fat to be trimmed, if you will.

As I've said on other occasions, the cuts that school boards have to do in order to make things work…. They have cut not just into the bone but into the marrow, really, in trying to make ends meet. To suggest that somehow you've got to be tough with school boards so that they will find the innovations to offset these increased pressures is a misguided approach for the minister. School boards need the support.

Utilities are one area. Another area, as I mentioned, in terms of cost pressures, is the cost of the teachers' wage increase. The teacher pay increase of 2½ percent per year for three years is an example of an unfunded anticipated cost. This is the first year the provincial government has added money to base school board allocations since legislating the teachers' contract two years ago. It's the first time that $50 million has been added since the legislation has come in. School boards have had to face this situation, and it is an anticipated cost but an unfunded anticipated cost.

Could the minister say how much the contract was worth over three years at 2½ percent per year for three years annualized?

Hon. T. Christensen: The impact of the salary increase starting three years ago was approximately $50 million in each year. The first year, the ministry funded it. The second two years, the school districts had to account for that. In those two years, or in that time period, we also added $124 million in one-time grants to assist school districts with meeting some of their pressures. That money all came from savings from within the ministry. We've said, consistently, that where we find savings in the ministry, we want to ensure that those dollars are going to classrooms.

The member appears to choose for Victoria to be micromanaging school districts. We clearly disagree on that front. School districts are elected officials. We're increasing funding to them, with $50 million this year to assist them, and at the same time, enrolment is projected to decline this year by 8,500 students. There are certainly a number of factors. I don't dispute that there are cost pressures the school districts have to deal with. Those can include utilities. They can include benefits. They can include general inflation.

School districts are in a position to make those decisions, and some will have more trouble than others. Where they're having trouble, as minister and, certainly, the ministry staff, we're prepared to review things with them and provide assistance. My experience and the government's experience to date has been that school districts are actually doing a pretty good job of addressing the cost pressures they face.

The government is continuing to follow through on its commitment to allocate out as much of the Ministry of Education budget as we can to school districts and to increase funding to school districts as the fiscal situation of the province improves.

The Chair: Members, the Lieutenant-Governor will be in the precincts at 8:30, so we'd like to conclude this committee by 8:25.

Noting the time, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY